<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>RE: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>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.<BR>
<BR>
If not, then leave it alone I agree.<BR>
<BR>
Lee<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: McTim [<A HREF="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Thu 2/12/2009 4:00 PM<BR>
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter<BR>
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward<BR>
<BR>
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter@ianpeter.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
> Although I agree with this phrasing, I wonder what people think about us not<BR>
> mentioning net neutrality at all or whether an addition such as "this<BR>
> includes elements of the network neutrality debate" would be useful<BR>
>><BR>
<BR>
I think it would be a distraction to use the term, since it means so<BR>
many things to many different people.<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
<BR>
McTim<BR>
<A HREF="http://stateoftheinternetin.ug">http://stateoftheinternetin.ug</A><BR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
<BR>
For all list information and functions, see:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>