I like the proposal. However, I am concerned that it does not quite hang together. The reviews of existing and evolving WAN technology options and the case study of an organization that has transitioned from a traditional WAN technology to an emerging WAN technology seems like one coherent piece. One could look at technology, services supported, pricing structures, public vs. private data networks and so on. In summary this looks at the backbone of an *organizations* internet. Next you turn to the *the* Internet with a focus on commerce and security issues. Are you going to position this as an alternative or an adjunct to the corporate internet? Is the corporate internet meant for internal business processes and *the* Internet designed to be the interconnect with the external world (i.e., in contrast to public data networks)? I think the context you should use to tie this material together is to look at the *internal* requirements and the *external* requirements of organizations and the examine the extent to which WAN technologies, old and new, and WAN services, public and private, can meet them. The Booz Allen case study will fit in nicely into this context. The emergency broadcast system fits but not as nicely. Remember that an emergency broadcast system is the technology used by one or more government agencies to communicate *externally* with the public. The current system in place does not use WAN technology. However, one could envision future systems using the Net to warn people but thishas to address issues of near universal public access to pass muster. So I feel that this part does not fit in as nicely with the first part of the paper. I suggest you focus on the first part of the paper and get to this second case study, time permitting and if you can make a case for how it fits. krishnan