RE: Conflict resolution?

[Jim Browning <jfbb@atmnet.net>]

>From:  Tony Rutkowski[SMTP:tony@netmagic.com]
>Sent:  Tuesday, November 19, 1996 2:50 PM
>
>2) Given the non-urgent nature of the matter, but the
>critical long-term implications, why must it occur "within
>a few months?"  The most trivial Internet protocol would get
>more consideration than this.

There are very many people who consider this matter to be urgent, including 
people at the extremes of the central arguments.  Those attempting to 
implement additional TLDs want to continue with the participation of a 
larger portion of the Internet community.  Those who are involved in 
litigation over domain names want to see a solution that helps to end that 
morass.  Those opposed to more TLDs would like to see an end to the 
process.  Others of us want to resolve this satisfactorily and quickly, 
have a lot more room in our mailboxes, and move on to other equally 
important matters.

>3) Given two governmental official public proceedings in the
>matter - in both the US and Europe - shouldn't any decisions,
>much less actions, await the completion of those proceedings?

I for one am unwilling to wait for the government to intervene.  I'd prefer 
to develop a workable solution, and have the governments of the world bless 
it...

>4) What kind of message does this behavior send to the
>outside world (public, business, governmental entities) about
>responsible self-governance?  Doesn't this suggest that it's
>really necessary for government to step in here, or invite
>judicial intervention?

I think the message it sends will depend on the success of the effort, 
including how closely the committee listens to input from other sources...
--
Jim Browning