Bill, first of all, thank you very very much for participating in
this. It's clear that we have not played the political game well,
and your experience is invaluable.
Every day I scan the comments received at the NTIA web site. There
are very few, so far, and a good part of those are just junk.
The contrast with the 400-odd comments with the original DoC RFC may
work to our disadvantage politically. I can imagine Magaziner
pointing congressional committees at this as evidence for agreement,
for example.
In your opinion, is the paper vs email/fax situation similar as far as
comments sent to NTIA? That is, will Magaziner and company pay more
attention to typed letters than to email? [Personally I believe that
they will pay little attention to comments at all, unless they are
overwhelmed.]
In your opinion, for NTIA comments, would it be counter-productive to
send copies of comments to both to the email address, and physically?
Do you think it would be wise to delay submission of NTIA comments to
the last possible moment, but send letters to congress early?
This gets to a larger issue -- is delaying the GP a good general
strategy, in that it will give us time to gather support?
> Now, I'm not sure how far you would get with Senators. I've known both
> of mine personally for over 10 years (before one of them ever ran for
> office), have been actively involved in campaigning (and paid consulting
> fees), and I still would not venture to expect contact or a response
> from them in under a month time-frame.
OTOH, it may be the case that this will drag on for months, and in that
case, the sooner that senators get involved, the better, don't you
think? And, given a letter to a congressperson, a letter to a
senator should be a simple edit.
[...]
>
> Make each contact individual, but mention a few of these things:
>
> - the proposed rule comment period expires March 23rd. Time is of the
> essence.
>
> - the proposed rule does not have statutory authority to create any new
> corporation.
>
> - the proposed rule would continue the NSI agreement past March 31st,
> which may be unconstitutional.
>
> - the NSF agreement with NSI has been enjoined by Judge Thomas Hogan.
>
> - the Internet does not need any new corporations to govern it. We
> already have established non-profit associations in DC and Geneva.
>
> - the proposed rule is interfering with inter-state and inter-national
> commerce.
>
> - the proposed rule is likely to be more expensive to the Internet than
> the current Council of Registrars.
>
> - the proposed rule is not supported by the Internet community, and may
> cause a split in the root operations, damaging the Internet.
Thanks for this great list, as well :-)
-- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html