Eric and all, Of course this is a good direction to consider and potentially take, but should not be an overriding factor, but one of several, which have been addressed. The important thing to be addressing is openness and transparency on any list dealing with potential Internet policy issues, most especially DNS issues. Failure to do so is counterproductive, and leads to degrading creditability. These issues of DNS and other internet policy issues are great importance to ALL stakeholders as the White Paper rightly indicates, but that the DNSO and ICANN have very reluctantly accepted. As we have already seen in Seattle with the WTO, exclusionary practices and not widely acceptable nor will they be in the future. Electronic participation is essential to many, most especially small ebusiness people that choose to participate actively. Weisberg wrote: > Roberto Gaetano wrote: > > > Michael, > > > > I agree that we should have a moderated list. > > The problem is the definition of a fair set of rules. > > What activities do we need to protect against and what rules are capable of > addressing those specific problems? Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
