April 2008 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

{Virus?} Delivery reports about your e-mail
by Post Office April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed Warning: (the entire message, document1.zip, document.zip, document.htm .exe). Warning: Please read the "EMWD-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information.

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 12, 2008

April 12, 2008

Wendy, Alan, and all, I agree with both you and Alan's observations below. It irritatingly clear that a tiny few are interested in severely limiting open and transparent participation in this forum as well as by any other user. However this has been to a large degree, the general attitude of the ICANN board sense it's conception. Ergo Wendy, your remarks regarding an overriding interest in "procedural complexities that do little to make ALAC more accountable to the at-large public", ring particularly true and far to loud. Such does not speak well to accountability, if it speaks to it at all... -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: Apr 12, 2008 11:58 AM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >Alan Greenberg wrote: >> I have some substantive comments, but first, I must point out that the >> document says a vote will be taken during the April teleconference, I >> presume that the plan is actually for May. >> >> I am attaching a copy of the draft document with my COMMENTS inserted >> (you may have to turn on displaying of Comment Balloons to see them). >> Some are purely editorial, but most are substantive. >> >> Overall, I find this document far too long, and too bureaucratic. >> Providing an 11 page document to tell people what is expected of them >> seems like a way to guarantee that it is not read. On the other hand, >> the major participation requirements are at times glossed over where >> they should be more descriptive. I nevertheless have addressed the >> document as it stands. >> >> I find the Conflict of Interest procedures overly complex. Yes, we must >> make sure we are not perceived as serving some other master, but we are >> an advisory committee, not a policy-making body. The GNSO, which *is* a >> policy making body has less onerous rules. >> >> I must admit that I am troubled that I found so much to comment on, and >> I haven't seen any other comments from ALAC members (unless they came in >> while I was in transit the last 24 hours). Am really that out of touch >> with everyone else? >> >Thanks Alan, >I posted my brief comments -- which align with yours (in the email, I >haven't reviewed the doc yet because the comments don't show up in >OpenOffice) -- to the list/wiki March 31: > >This document appears to be largely a compilation of procedural >complexities that do little to make ALAC more accountable to the >at-large public. I don't think we need more rules, we need a better set >of reporting mechanisms to coordinate with the public. > >I too have seen no other comments from ALAC members. > >--Wendy > >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org >Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law >Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >http://www.chillingeffects.org/ >https://www.torproject.org/ > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 12, 2008

April 12, 2008

Excellent observations and ones which you beat me to the punch on. >:) Congrats on that! The single biggest problem with the ALS framework is that it becomes potentially unwieldy and overly buarcratic in nature, and ensuring accountability of any ALS, such as the French ALS, becomes problematic for the ICANN staff to properly and fully monitor. But all this really gets back to the GNSO structure and review of same. What's more important though, is the restriction of participation in any ALS and especially on this, the global ALAC forum. Censorship is inconsistent with the ICANN's boards stated objectives and ICANN's mission. Yet it is clear that there are those within the ALAC that are determined to seek a limitation of active participation. However this has been one of the most recognized errors in the displayed attitudes of ICANN sense it's conception, and seemingly is now passed over to the ALAC. As ICANN is still a California corporation and the ALC is a ICANN "Effort" for lack of a better description at the moment, the practicing of thwarting the 1st amendment which is egregious, not to mention a violation of the law, I would again ask the ALAC staff to discontinue such illegal activities immediately and request that the DOC/NTIA take immediate and appreciate action in my own behalf as well as issue a severe reminder or warning to the ALAC chair and staff to cease and desist such illegal activities. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Apr 12, 2008 12:41 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >Alan and Wendy, > >Thanks for your work on this document. Allow me to >point out what still is missing. > >We need some emphasis on the obligation of ALAC >members to act to decertify non-participating ALSs. > >At this point, that's the vast bulk of those that have >been certified. I would guess that probably close to >90% do not participate at all in any exchange of >dialogue. > >The ICANN Bylaws tell us that "Decisions to certify or >decertify an At-Large Structure shall be made as >decided by the ALAC in its Rules of Procedure". > >Unfortunately, whoever drafted the rules of procedure >must have thought that they were crafting a document >for the United Nations General Assembly, so, of >course, no decertification process is outlined within. > >You're not going to be viewed as an accountable body >if you continue to carry this much noncontributing >dead wood on your membership roster. > >At the major GNSO conference that was just held in LA >on new gTLD implementation considerations, how many >ALSs had their reps in attendance (either remotely or >in person)? Just two. That's rather pathetic when >the ALAC claims to have 100 or so ALSs signed up. > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Internet Pioneer urges Pacific Islanders to face Internet Challenges at PacINET 2008
by Franck Martin April 12, 2008

April 12, 2008

http://wiki.chapters.isoc.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=70 -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck.martin(a)gmail.com http://www.peachymango.org/ "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Budget & Finance SubCommittee Meeting
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 12, 2008

April 12, 2008

Adam and all, You seem to contradict yourself here in your remarks. If you don't have any involvment with this "Camp" than how can you state emphatically what is is really all about and than at the same time say Danny doesn't have any idea of what is is all about? Secondly but perhaps more importantly, if this "Camp" is as important as you seem to purport, than it would seem logical that those sishing to attend can pony up the $$ to attend and fund it, don't you think? If, not than I can only surmise logically that your contention is less than completely accurate. This therefore leaves Dannys surmising as likely correct. -----Original Message----- >From: Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> >Sent: Apr 11, 2008 6:12 AM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Budget & Finance SubCommittee Meeting > >Danny, > >The purpose of the camp is to bring young people >working on Internet technology and policy issues >together with some of the experienced folk. The >camp's goal is to nurture the next generation of >Internet pioneers (apologies if that sounds a >little hackneyed, but that's really what it tries >to do...) You have things back to front, it's >not a junket for the experienced but an >opportunity for those who want to learn and to >contribute in the future. > >It also has a secondary purpose of helping these >younger people present papers in English and >discuss issues in English. Most are not native >English speaker. Necessary if they are to be able >to participate in organizations line ICANN. > >Information about the camp <http://www.apng.org/10thcamp.htm> > >I am not involved in the camp, have no knowledge >of its current level of sponsorship, programme >etc. But think important to correct Danny's >misrepresentation of the camp's purpose. > >Best, > >Adam > > > >At 5:45 AM -0700 4/11/08, Danny Younger wrote: >>Cheryl, >> >>Please forward this message to whomever sits on the >>Budget & Finance SubCommittee. >> >>At the meeting scheduled for 18 April the subcommittee >>will discuss agenda item 6 (Listing of >>Community-Identified Priorities for 2008/2009 with a >>Budgetary Dimension) which includes a request by the >>APRALO for "Funding to sponsor the APNG Camp in >>Thailand (Outreach)". >> >>The APNG Camp annually draws about 50 participants. >>It has an executive committee that includes a number >>of well-known ICANN luminaries such as Tommy Matsumoto >>(former ALAC member), Kilnam Chon and Paul Wilson. >> >>It has an Advisory Board that also includes figures >>well-known in ICANN circles such as Tan Tin Wee and >>Jun Murai (former ICANN Board Director). >> >>The APNG Steering Committee includes people like Izumi >>Aizu (current ALAC member) and James Seng. >> >>Its At-Large Committee includes Qian Hualin (former >>ICANN Board director and Hong Xue (current ALAC >>member). >> >>At last year's camp, Tuesday morning saw a >>presentation on "ICANN ALAC and APRALO activities". >> >>This is probably the one organization in the world for >>which an ALAC Outreach effort is most definately not >>required. The Camp is primarily populated by those >>that know ICANN all too well -- they have no need of >>an outreach effort as their own internal committees >>and members are all fully familiar with the ALAC and >>RALO and ICANN processes. >> >>Spending funds on this initiative ostensibly on behalf >>of "outreach" is not only a waste of monies, but it's >>an insult to the integrity of the ALAC funds >>disbursement process. >> >>The ALAC should not be in the business of funding >>junkets. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Budget & Finance SubCommittee Meeting
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 12, 2008

April 12, 2008

Danny and all, Thank you Danny for re-introducing this subject issue in respect to Budget&Finance for the ALAC as it relates to meeting attendance costs/expendatures. It as you know, has always been my personal opinion that such funding as with all ALAC funding should come from withing the ALAC, not from ICANN's funds. Of course, ICANN's funds should never have been a result of registrant fees, which is an unfair form of taxation without full representation, which is now the case and always has been. If the ALAC and/or any ALS cannot raise it's own funds for whatever purposes, than it is doomed to failure as it cannot be considered legitimate by definition and broadly excepted business norms. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Apr 11, 2008 7:58 AM >To: Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org>, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Budget & Finance SubCommittee Meeting > >Izumi, > >I am targeting wasteful spending on the part of those >that think ICANN is a cash cow to be milked. > >You want the ALAC to subsidize travel expenses for an >event that only draws a few people and that already >accomodates a number of extremely knowledgable ICANN >veterans. > >Why should ICANN pay for this? > >It's not unreasonable to ask you to properly justify >your request as the APRALO will be spending monies >that they did not raise that come from the pockets of >the registrant community. > > >--- Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org> wrote: > >> Thanks Adam, your comments are mostly, if not all, >> on target. >> >> Danny, I don't understand why you are targeting at >> something >> totally outside your own region. AP region has been >> trying to >> raise awareness on ICANN and AtLarge, and APNG is >> one >> good area, among others, to reach out future >> generations. >> I understand you spend 30 minutes on google or web >> search >> to find some "old" folks involved, but they are >> mostly only >> nominally involved, but not substantively, with APNG >> camp, >> which is getting much more youth oriented, and henth >> future oriented. While they are not all intersted in >> Domain >> Name or IP addres areas per se at this moment, they >> are >> very much acting as user/culture initiatives. Thus I >> don't understand >> why you make so much noise about what you really do >> not >> know. Please mind your own business first. Don' try >> to shoot your >> potential friends, serisouly. >> >> izumi >> >> >> 2008/4/11, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>: >> > >> > Danny, >> > >> > The purpose of the camp is to bring young people >> > working on Internet technology and policy issues >> > together with some of the experienced folk. The >> > camp's goal is to nurture the next generation of >> > Internet pioneers (apologies if that sounds a >> > little hackneyed, but that's really what it tries >> > to do...) You have things back to front, it's >> > not a junket for the experienced but an >> > opportunity for those who want to learn and to >> > contribute in the future. >> > >> > It also has a secondary purpose of helping these >> > younger people present papers in English and >> > discuss issues in English. Most are not native >> > English speaker. Necessary if they are to be able >> > to participate in organizations line ICANN. >> > >> > Information about the camp >> <http://www.apng.org/10thcamp.htm> >> > >> > I am not involved in the camp, have no knowledge >> > of its current level of sponsorship, programme >> > etc. But think important to correct Danny's >> > misrepresentation of the camp's purpose. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> > >> > At 5:45 AM -0700 4/11/08, Danny Younger wrote: >> > >Cheryl, >> > > >> > >Please forward this message to whomever sits on >> the >> > >Budget & Finance SubCommittee. >> > > >> > >At the meeting scheduled for 18 April the >> subcommittee >> > >will discuss agenda item 6 (Listing of >> > >Community-Identified Priorities for 2008/2009 >> with a >> > >Budgetary Dimension) which includes a request by >> the >> > >APRALO for "Funding to sponsor the APNG Camp in >> > >Thailand (Outreach)". >> > > >> > >The APNG Camp annually draws about 50 >> participants. >> > >It has an executive committee that includes a >> number >> > >of well-known ICANN luminaries such as Tommy >> Matsumoto >> > >(former ALAC member), Kilnam Chon and Paul >> Wilson. >> > > >> > >It has an Advisory Board that also includes >> figures >> > >well-known in ICANN circles such as Tan Tin Wee >> and >> > >Jun Murai (former ICANN Board Director). >> > > >> > >The APNG Steering Committee includes people like >> Izumi >> > >Aizu (current ALAC member) and James Seng. >> > > >> > >Its At-Large Committee includes Qian Hualin >> (former >> > >ICANN Board director and Hong Xue (current ALAC >> > >member). >> > > >> > >At last year's camp, Tuesday morning saw a >> > >presentation on "ICANN ALAC and APRALO >> activities". >> > > >> > >This is probably the one organization in the >> world for >> > >which an ALAC Outreach effort is most definately >> not >> > >required. The Camp is primarily populated by >> those >> > >that know ICANN all too well -- they have no need >> of >> > >an outreach effort as their own internal >> committees >> > >and members are all fully familiar with the ALAC >> and >> > >RALO and ICANN processes. >> > > >> > >Spending funds on this initiative ostensibly on >> behalf >> > >of "outreach" is not only a waste of monies, but >> it's >> > >an insult to the integrity of the ALAC funds >> > >disbursement process. >> > > >> > >The ALAC should not be in the business of funding >> > >junkets. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >__________________________________________________ >> > >Do You Yahoo!? >> > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam >> protection around >> > >http://mail.yahoo.com >> > > >> > >_______________________________________________ >> > >ALAC mailing list >> > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > > >> > >> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > > >> > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ALAC mailing list >> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > >> > >> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > >> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita >> Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo >> Japan >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> www.anr.org >> > > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Tracking of our messages - not a privacy violation.. ?
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 12, 2008

April 12, 2008

Chris and all, Tracking of Email messages on a public mailing list isn't a privacy violation unless the TOS for that mailing list provides for that protection. The GA list did block tracking and I believe still does. -----Original Message----- >From: "Blogs.pn" <namecritic(a)blogs.pn> >Sent: Apr 11, 2008 11:07 AM >To: Robert Guerra <lists(a)privaterra.info>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Tracking of our messages - not a privacy violation.. ? > >By the way, not sure of the definition of new. It's been on some lists for >over a year now. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert Guerra" <lists(a)privaterra.info> >To: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 12:15 PM >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Tracking of our messages - not a privacy violation.. >? > > >> John & Vini: >> >> My interest is to - start a discussion on this, and from there see >> what consensus (if any) emerges on the issue. >> >> My personal view, is that a new practice was introduced - one that >> wasn't sufficiently explained nor discussed before the weekly >> summaries started to appear. How and for what purposes the stats are >> being used, might be legally required in certain jurisdictions. >> >> Great to see this is being discussed. I am keen to hear views from >> others - and from there, identify any recommendations (if any) that >> should be sent to staff and/or the board. >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> >> >> >> On 11-Apr-08, at 11:51 AM, John Levine wrote: >> >>>> I look forward to hearing what others think about this >>> >>> Monthly posting summaries are common on lists at many organizations >>> such as the IETF with participants from around the world. They're a >>> useful way to track the health of a list. Since the summaries are >>> sent to the same list where everyone has already seen all of the >>> messages, it's hard to think of any reasonable basis on which this >>> would be a privacy violation. >>> >>>> and what steps (if any) we might want to take .. >>> >>> None I can think of. >>> >>> R's, >>> John >>> >>> PS: Don't look at this URL. >>> >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/ >>> Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

New gTLD Implementation Slides
by Danny Younger April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

For those of you that aren't participating remotely in today's GNSO/Staff New gTLDs conference in LA, please note that slides (68) are available to review at http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtlds-policy-discussion-11apr08.pdf __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Tracking of our messages - not a privacy violation .. ?
by Alan Greenberg April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

As far as I can tell, this is a completely public list, and an individual (not ICANN staff) has summarized the posts and sends the summary to the list. I don't see what this has to do with staff. Since the lists are open to the public (not limited to list participants, I don't see how this is a privacy issue. Alan At 11/04/2008 12:41 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >A simple message from staff indicating that statistics were going to >be posted for the use of helping us assess the level of engagement >would be a good thing to have happened. > >Not sure why such a notice wasn't sent. > >regards > >Robert > > > > >On 11-Apr-08, at 12:25 PM, John Levine wrote: > > >> My interest is to - start a discussion on this, and from there see > >> what consensus (if any) emerges on the issue. > > > > Robert, this is silly. The ALAC has a lot of important issues to > > deal with, but this isn't one of them. > > > > If the full text public archive of this list isn't a problem, it's > > absurd to claim that a few simple statistics are. > > > > R's, > > John > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

2 1

RES: Comments on GNSO improvements
by Danny Younger April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

JFC: I would like to respond to this remark: "In a system where Danny Younger can decide as a non-legitimate NCUC member (as ISOC NY he represents an individual users organisation) impeach the adhesion of my non-profit services oriented organisation to its consituency (NCUC) the system is flawed in terms of democratic representativity." When applications are tendered for membership in the NCUC, members will volunteer to perform the requisite due diligence. Upon examining the bona fides presented and other documentation, I came to the conclusion that the application was submitted by an individual rather than by an organization. My assessment was forwarded to the Executive Committee that reviewed and agreed with my conclusions (and that still offered you an opportunity to refute the conclusions that I had reached). As the Committee was not persuaded by either your application or your refutation, membership was not granted (as the NCUC is set up to accomodate organizations, not individuals). Perhaps you will have some luck in convincing the ALAC that france@large is an organization with an actual membership. As for me, I have my doubts as to whether you actually have an organization -- not that it bothers me too much as the At-Large was always supposed to be about individuals (until the ALAC perverted the concept). So whether you will or won't be an ALS, it makes little difference to me as long as there continues to be merit in your comments and as long as we can continue to benefit from your contributions. ... and frankly, I have grown used to the presence of those on our lists that pretend to have organizations and pretend to be organizational spokesmen... so whatever the ultimate disposition of your latest application I will still welcome your messages. regards, Danny __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1