AS IF we haven't had enough of the Y2K problem and all the hype which surrounds it, now we're seeing conflicting views about the "proper'' way of conducting Y2K seminars. Recently, we were ringside spectators to one such bout.

In the left corner was a representative of the private sector, RBA Modules and Manuals, which is holding a Y2K seminar titled "Y2K Risk Management Summit--The Final Countdown" today and tomorrow at the Dusit Hotel Nikko.

In the right corner was a representative of the government, the Presidential Commission on Year 2000 Compliance, which did not give its blessing to the RBA seminar.

RBA, in the red trunks, has invited as speakers Defense Secretary Orlando Mercado, Sec. Alexander Aguirre of the National Security Council and other IT luminaries such as Gus Lagman, Bill Torres and pareng Jerry Liao of Infochat. Jerry is also the former president of Cyberpress, the Philippines' association of IT journalists. Even Erap himself sent RBA a congratulatory note for coming up with the Y2K summit, realizing that government-private sector cooperation is needed to squash this overhyped bug.

Meanwhile, the Y2K Commission, wearing blue trunks, sent a letter to the speakers invited to the RBA Y2K summit saying that it is not one of the official events of the Y2K Commission.

In short, the Y2K Commission is not supporting the privately organized Y2K seminar of RBA. The commission reportedly justified its action by saying that it wants to avoid the proliferation of "overpriced'' Y2K seminars.

RBA reportedly is asking for a seminar fee of P6,500 per attendee to the two-day event, with early bird discounts. If memory serves me right, several weeks ago David Paraiso held his own seminar series at a more expensive clip (around P8,000 per attendee). I wonder why Aguiluz and the Commissioners (not to be confused with Echo and the Bunnymen) never stepped in when Paraiso came to town to conduct his more expensive seminar series. Or perhaps, after the Paraiso seminar, the Y2K commission decided to nip the lucrative Y2K seminar business in the bud to discourage others from following suit.

Remember last year, I said that if anything's going to be definite about the Y2K brouhaha, it will be that many people will attempt to cash in on the Y2K scare. Perhaps the Y2K Commission does not want anyone to capitalize on the Y2K issue (similar to what event organizers did last year when they used the Centennial theme to the hilt, declaring a Centennial Seminar or Exhibit on This and That).

But how lucrative is a Y2K seminar anyway? Well, reports have it that the seminar of RBA leaves a lot to be desired as far as overall revenue is concerned. I wonder if the Paraiso Y2K seminar series fared better.

But then again, who says the Y2K Commission has nothing to gain from such seminars? Y2K event organizers could easily ask for an endorsement from Aguiluz and the Commissioners so that the Y2K body could get a certain percentage of the event's proceeds to be diverted to its operating funds. Such a percentage could help the cause of the Y2K Commission, bearing in mind that it did not get the P100-million budget it was asking from Congress.

What would be a fair revenue percentage for the Y2K Commission? Ten percent? Forty percent? I don't know. RBA and the Y2K Commission should enlighten us on this matter. Or perhaps they even tried to come up with a figure only to end up arguing about how to share the pie.

Profit motives aside, the question still goes back to the most basic one: Does the Y2K Commission have the mandate to sanction or not Y2K seminars, exhibits or summits conducted by other entities, whether they be from the government or the private sector? And, if you were planning to hold a Y2K event anytime this year, should you seek first the endorsement of the Y2K Commission?

Karim Bangcola of the Y2K Commission says people should listen only to authorized Y2K bodies in the Philippines and not to unauthorized Y2K sources like Warburg Dillon Read, which recently conducted a survey which came out in The Economist. The survey said the Philippines was way behind in terms of Y2K compliance, a statement the Y2K Commission immediately slammed. Bangcola and the Commissioners maintain that the seven mission-critical sectors of the country are 60 to 85 percent Y2K-compliant. Such a "false" and "negative" impression of the country's Y2K-readiness, they say, is damaging to the Philippines' image. And so they ended up suing Warburg.

This sounds just like the administration the Y2K Commission is working for. They say everything you read from the Inquirer are lies, lies and lies. There are also lies and more lies. If you want to hear the truth, listen to "Jeep ni Erap'' and that Etong guy.

What if I asked the commission to bare the entire results of their own survey and compare it with that of Warburg's? Exactly how many respondents were there, gentlemen, and how tiny a percentage was it which actually even bothered to read your questionnaire?

Last night I heard on TV news that Y2K Commission head Amable Aguiluz was quoted as saying that Philippine car manufacturers have declared Y2K compliance, and that the motoring industry in general is ready for the bug. Is it true, gentlemen, that so far only Toyota Motor Philippines has responded to your survey? If so, wouldn't it be misleading to say that the entire Philippine car industry is ready?

Now tell me, who's telling lies? Who's being irresponsible? Who's the authority we should listen to, the one who says the general public should trust instead of Warburg? In the same vein, should we all listen to Jeep ni Erap and swallow whatever Etong and Erap are stuffing down our throats?

If I say right now that the Philippines is not yet completely ready for the Y2K bug, would you also sue me in an attempt to shut me up? Would you say that I am an alarmist--a danger to the IT community?

And, when it comes to Y2K events, should event attendees first look for the "Y2K Commission Stamp of Approval'' before attending the seminar or exhibit?

I wouldn't.