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