>_From: George Michaelson
> 
> 
>   Given the absence of any quantitive analysis in this area, it's easy
>   to ignore the "lost opportunity costs" of delay. I suspect that such
>   costs are significant, but easy to ignore because the costs are
>   distributed across tens of thousands of little people.
> 
> We've already incurred this in quids. We know this. but the other side
> of the balance, the 'getting it right' side still has some rough edges
> on it.
> 
> So if you took Narelles goal as an early estimate, and mine as a late
> do we straddle a plausible mean?

no asomething need to be done today not tommorow.

> I think as long as *progress* is made this year, we're on track. If we
> go nowhere, its a bummer.

progress hasnt been made to date because certain people havnt wanted it to.

seting a nice new deadline strecthing out over two years just so some people
who will not be stake holders in the new order have the warm and fuzzie
is pointless and a waste of time. if NOIE is not interested in the
australian domain name system then we should just proceed without them.

the facts are we have a monopoly situation that has to come to an end
and everyday extra day of delay allows MIT to lock customers into 2 year
contracts hence delaying the effects of real competition by two year
from the date you introduce it.

I think a lot of people here are in fact not stake holders will not be
stake holders and  while there opinion may be interesting it is ultimately
counter productive since they are not aware of what has gone on to date.


Vic