On Tuesday 01 February 2005 07:41, Paul Bagyenda wrote: > Hi James and Co,
Paul, > > I think we need to be fair to UCC on this one. True the first document > provided background and little in the way of proposals, but Dr. > Tusubira explained clearly why that was the case: They did not want to > pre-empt. It was well understood from the first session that our > proposals on the post-duopoly period were expected, prior to the > follow-up meeting in January. In addition, I understand that there was > a UCC meeting with ISPs and Telcos, which was quite good and featured a > lot of "full and frank exchanges". Aha, the plot thickens... perhaps anyone on the list that attended the meeting could shed some light on what the basis of licensing a TNO was. I obviously don't have all the facts :(. Mark. _______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
