In message <[log in to unmask]>, Jeffrey Cochrane writes
> Thanks to Dr. Quaynor and Dr. Lisse for their responses,
> most enlightening. One further comment:
> It is good news indeed to hear that there is an ongoing debate, and
> I am personally greatly appreciative of Dr. Quaynor's active
> participation in that debate. Is there some way for interested
> parties to remain current on the substance of the debate, to provide
> regular input to the various delegates, etc?
The point is that not even your attempts should lend any credence to
the GAC. GAC doesn't matter, remember?
> The reason I ask relates particularly to this comment by
> > The most important thing to remember is that the
> > stability of the Internet is paramount and hence do not
> > support any policy or program that may lead to
> > instability of the Internet eg. the disappearance of
> > ccTLD domain name space from the Internet.
> Indeed. I can envision a situation wherein the private sector and
> public organizations become so frustrated with the management of
> ccTLDs under some future framework for their administration that
> they all simply decide to abandon ccTLDs and work through the gTLDs.
Gee, whiz, we agree on something :-)-O
Involving government into the management of ccTLDs is as necessary as
> Would that be a good thing for Africa?
By the way, I have this very wise mother in law who thinks that in
order to worry about these things, you need electricity to run the
computers and telephone wire to connect them to the net.
Nevermind schools, health care, clean water and roads.