RE: [wg-c] Fwd: Call Congress - Stop H.R. 3028, The "Cyberpiracy" Act

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	I agree with Eric and Tod that the WG-C list should be reserved for
discussion that is immediately relevant to issues surrounding the addition
of new gTLDs to the root, and this isn't.  (I say this as somebody who
signed the ACM letter on H.R. 3028 about ten days ago.)  Now -- please
let's not fill up the WG-C bandwidth with discussion of whether the initial
post was an appropriate use of bandwidth.

	An update:  I expect the WG-C interim report, consisting of seven position
papers and a co-chair's introduction, to be posted on the website soon, and
publicized on the various DNSO mailing lists.  That will kick off a public
comment period, so that we can see what the rest of the DNSO community (and
the rest of the world, to the extent that they hear about it) think of our
work so far.  After we read that public comment, we'll be in a better
position to figure out where we go from here.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com





At 09:27 AM 10/25/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 6:16 AM -0700 10/25/99, Cohen, Tod wrote:
>>I believe that this is an inappropriate use of the WG-C working group list
>>serve.  In addition, Mikki's email is filled with incorrect and inflamatory
>>statements.
>
>I'm afraid I disagree.  I think it is important for all to understand that
>their work can easily be circumvented by monied interests who can afford to
>lobby Congress in the US (and other countires).
>
>It also clearly illustrates why intellectual propery interests should not
>be a part of "technical management" of the Internet.  These interests
>clearly have the means to "protect" themselves without muddying up the
>waters of ICANN's mandate.
>
>
>
>
>