+1, it is best to limit the scope of the PDP as best we can

---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org


On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  I agree and support Milton's and Avri's version, particularly in view of
> the very tight time frame the PDP will take place in.
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
>  *Mary W S Wong*
> Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Franklin Pierce Law Center
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
> at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>
>
> >>>
>     *From: * William Drake <[log in to unmask]> *To:* NCUC
> Members List <[log in to unmask]>, NCSG-Policy <
> [log in to unmask]> *Date: * 2/21/2010 6:30 AM *Subject: * [ncsg-policy]
> Re: Vertical integration charter
> Hi
>
>  On Feb 21, 2010, at 1:23 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>   My version, on the other hand, simply asks the WG to make a
> determination whether the staff deviated from existing policy/practices in
> drafting the contract. That is a more objective, well-defined and less
> open-ended objective and can be completed in a reasonable period of time.
>
>    Therefore, I am asking for your support so that Avri and I can
> legitimate tell the Drafting Team that NCUC/NCSG support the first version
> of Objective 5.
>
>
> Of course.  Our point was always to set in place a coherent and reasoned
> framework to replace decision making based on staff fiat, not to slow down
> new gTLDs.
>
> Bill
>