I am so sorry to hear this. When did it happen? No wonder I could not trace you around the venue. Pole sana. On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear people, sorry for having disappeared for about two days -- bad case of > food poisoning. > > Curious note -- I went to the information desk looking for the doctor, they > said they did not know about any ICANN doctor. Talked to the support people > and they found him -- very gentle Dr Brian Bird. He took me to the ambulance > to measure my blood pressure, and discovered that the ambulance had no > sphygmomanometer (believe me, this is the name of the blood pressure > metering device), and the ambulance operator got ready to rush me to > hospital. Thanks to a shocked Dr Bird (how come an ambulance has no > sphygnowathever? etc) he retained me, gave me good advice and I am ready for > another. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Last night I saw Avri's YouTube interview on the EoI topic and was fully >> convinced. That kind of wording makes it clear that we want to move ahead >> with opening things up, and Wendy's point is true that it requires making a >> permanent commitment before one knows what one is getting into. I am happy >> with the statement that came out of the NCSG meeting. >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [[log in to unmask]] On >> Behalf Of Mary Wong [[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 6:13 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Notes on NCUC/NCSG meeting today >> >> I'm not sure where we are in this discussion (been having trouble remotely >> with my email server), but FWIW I agree with (1) Avri that the EoI is likely >> to result in further delay (e.g. its reference to a refund only if a full >> launch doesn't happen in 18 months); and (2) Wendy that its mandatory nature >> makes it, in effect, a true application at the pre-launch phase. >> >> My personal opinion is also that I don't oppose an EoI in concept, but >> this particular EoI is flawed as is. >> >> 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]<mailto:[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: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: 3/9/2010 10:00 AM >> Subject: Re: Notes on NCUC/NCSG meeting today >> On 9 Mar 2010, at 17:33, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> In relation to this exchange: >>> >>> Willy curry – where does gac unease come from >>> Avri – its binding nature. It perceives it as starting the round without >>> their issues being resolved. >>> >>> That provides a pretty good explanation of why I SUPPORTED the EoI. >> >> If the EOI can't be started until everything is resolved, >> then why do you need an EOI? >> >> It is not needed to resolve the scaling issue, utting names in in batches >> a ew at a time is going to resolve that it real time. the specialtion ange >> from the DNS not being able to eve support 20 to it being able to support >> 1000s. any number EOI gives will not resolve the issue of how many before >> wisps of smoke come out of the DNS >> >> On TM FUD. Why is there any expectation that any amount of data will top >> their creativity when it comes to FUD? >> >> I reject the idea completely since i see it as yet another process that >> only achieves delay in the original process. >> >> a. >> >> >