<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF'</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Adam Peake [<A HREF="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp">mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp</A>]<BR>
>* Issues relating to the management of critical<BR>
>Internet resources, including administration of<BR>
>the domain name system and IP addresses,<BR>
>administration of the root server system, as well<BR>
>as multilingualization of the domain name system<BR>
><BR>
>I'd have picked the second bullet only and left<BR>
>the first for access and perhaps openness<BR>
>(standards).<BR>
<BR>
Right, I see now. I agree. I keep forgetting that "critical internet resources" is a rather poorly defined grab-bag of things in IGF. Any discussion that tries to mix peering and interconnection pricing with DNS or IP addressing issues is going to go nowhere fast. And an IGF discussing "convergent technologies" could indeed be a diversion or distraction.<BR>
<BR>
Here's what matters at this point. For all this sound and fury about the discussion of cIr on this list, it is not clear to me what others on this list want to be discussed about it. What are perceived as the substantive issues? Anyone who has visited the IGP site knows what WE think the substantive issues are. But what about the rest of you? Unless I've missed a flurry of emails, we seem to have been utterly consumed by the discussion of whether we will discuss them and who will discuss them, and less with what specific issue or problem is to be discussed & what are the priorities.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>