[governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward

[Lee W McKnight]

But we all support 'open'ness right, and probably don't need a debate to put that word or the phrase 'open access' into the doc.

If not, then leave it alone I agree.

Lee 


-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Thu 2/12/2009 4:00 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward
 
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

<snip>
> Although I agree with this phrasing, I wonder what people think about us not
> mentioning net neutrality at all or whether an addition such as "this
> includes elements of the network neutrality debate" would be useful
>>

I think it would be a distraction to use the term, since it means so
many things to many different people.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
http://stateoftheinternetin.ug
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090213/ac4cf8c7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance