<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Evan<br><div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Oct 12, 2012, at 6:59 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Merge the proposed group with the ISP stakeholders and call the newly-rechartered result the "infrastructure constituency" -- which is what I thought it should have been in the first place.</span></blockquote></div><br><div>I have to wonder how well the telecenters' interests and positions on gTLDs (TBD) would fit with those of the ISPs, particularly since some of the latter are not insubstantial players with varying degrees of market power.</div><div><br></div><div>If the telecenters want to get involved I think they should be given their own space in CSG to develop without getting squashed. Let some flowers bloom in CSG, just as they advocated for NCSG.</div><div><br></div><div>I suggest this topic be at the top of our list for our board meeting.</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div></body></html>