+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 >