[governance] ICANN DOC: The EU commission's perspective

[Veni Markovski]

At 04:39 PM 03.10.2006 '?.'  -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:

> >>> veni at veni.com 10/3/2006 2:37 AM >>>
> >why do you have to be so unhappy
>
>I am, in fact, quite happy at the moment. Life is good generally.

Well, then look at the positive things, such as the EUC statement. 
That makes life generally better.

>Are you unhappy?

Milton, this is a mailing list. No one is interested in personal 
questions. If someone is, we surely stay in touch by private e-mails 
on such topics.

> > when people are
> >saying that the end of the MoU is good for the Internet?
>
>Veni, I have been saying the end of the MoU would be good for the
>internet for longer than you have been involved.

There it is again. Why always trying to stress on the fact how long 
you have been involved? I don't remember questioning the quantity of 
time you've spent on IG issues.

>The problem is that I dont' see how the JPA ends the MoU.

Well, that's what you see. I see it differently. Commissioner Reding 
sees it differently. Other people see it differently. Differences of 
opinions. But I also asked questions, to which you didn't respond. 
You just search for conflicts.

>Some other people have pointed out
>to me that the EC may have a private, informal agreement with the U.S.
>It's possible, but unlikely in  my opinion because the 2009 date takes
>us into the time of a new U.S. government, the Bush admin. will be gone.

Relating the way the Internet is being governed to the administration 
in the US is an opinion. Somehow I doubt that it depends on the 
administration. One thing I noticed in the USA is, that the system 
keeps on working regardless of who is the President. This is good for 
the US, as in other countries the administration defines if the system works.

> >What if the IGP analysis you quote might have
> >misinterpreted the wording of the JPA?
>
>I'd be happy to see you identify any wording that conflicts with my 
>interpretation.

This is what I was telling you above. You look for conflicts, always. 
I don't. I just asked if the IGP analysis might be misinterpreting 
the wording. At least now I know it's not an IGP analysis, but yours 
('my interpretation' means it's yours, right?).



Sincerely,
Veni Markovski
http://www.veni.com

check also my blog:
http://blog.veni.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061004/ba88b001/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061004/ba88b001/attachment.txt>