Great, Bill.

In order to focus, I leave only one section of your long letter, but we
should all have this one present, and quote it whenever the word
"consumer protection" is used:


William Drake wrote:
> [snip a lot]
> But here's a pretty relevant example, the Australian Telecom Users
> Group that Rosemary also heads and is an INTUG member. It comprises:
>
> http://www.atug.com.au/mdcarrier.cfm 11 telecom carriers and ISPs, all
> of which sound like for profit firms
> http://www.atug.com.au/mdserviceprovider.cfm 7 service providers, one
> of which "represents the ICT interests of 16 hospitals and 65 health
> agencies," some of which I'd guess are nonprofit. I'm no expert on the
> Australian health system.
> http://www.atug.com.au/mdconsultant.cfm 10 consultancies, sound for
> profit to me, and another listed as research
> http://www.atug.com.au/mdconsultant.cfm 5 equipment suppliers like
> Nokia Siemens etc
> http://www.atug.com.au/mdother.cfm 7 other entities including a
> government body and Quantas airlines, etc.
>
> So, is an org with this membership a consumer protection outfit
> advocating the interests of the noncommercial sector that would
> properly be placed in the NCSG, rather than in the CSG?
>
> Roberto et al may think this is an irrelevant question, but I do not.
>
> Bill 

Thanks for producing such material which speaks so clearly. It would be
ridiculous if somebody would say this is "non-commercial" and not
"business" interests.


Norbert

-- 
If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit
The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English.

This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror:

Cambodia as a Member of the International Community of States
http://tinyurl.com/ykv2l3q

(To read it, click on the line above.)

And here is something new every day:
http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com