RFC-9704 Summary of Comments

Besides the web page, several comments on the PAB list were summarized as well.

Summary and Recommendations:

Comments were almost uniformly in favor of the general thrust of the proposal.

Several variations were suggested for the breakdown of the new POC members. This suggests that the final result retain some flexibility in this area -- that the categories be more general, perhaps, and that a revision be scheduled after the new group is installed. It seems clear that nominees who are not members of PAB should be allowed, perhaps actively encouraged.

There were several quite good comments about the voting rules, particularly Eastlake and Priori, which probably should be read in detail. The notion that PAB members select a subset of classifications to vote for was not favored, and a model where each PAB member simply has one vote per classification (or something similar) is preferred. To summarize: it seems preferable that each PAB member simply vote for a candidate in each classification, whatever the classifications may be, and that there not be any attempt to classify the PAB membership into different voting groups. [I note that such a classification would *substantially* complicate the PAB voting mechanism, introduce a number of opportunities for errors, and at least currently would require a burdensome manual audit of the results - KC]

Individual Short Comments:

Should be an "exclusion" definition to prevent an organization, subsidiary, or parent from controlling more than one seat.

Document should clarify the separate consituencies that POC can be elected from.

Should be 3 consumer representatives; 2 Operator and Service Provider representatives; proposes that rather than adding two more business representatives that the INTA, WIPO, and ITU slots be rotated among a larger group of organizations representing various constituencies.

More extensive comments

Priori Networks:

Proposes total of 14 members of POC -- 2 end-users, 2 industry, 2 ISP, 2 internet technology, 2 law, 1 CORE, 1 ISOC, 1 IANA, 1 ITU; consensus method, with 70% majority required in votes; POC may delegate powers to an executive committee.

detailed proposal for PAB voting technique -- nominations may be made by anyone; must declare the interest group being represented, and include a statement of qualifications; all PAB members may vote for two nominees in each interest group; two nominees with most votes wins; PAB electronic voting method to be used; first vote 3 months after proposal adopted.


Suggests that a specific category be added for public interest organizations such as EFF and Computer Scientists for Social Responsibility.

Suggests that because PAB membership is so open that it is susceptible to hijacking, and thus the increase of POC members should be done over a period of time to prevent this.

Prefers 5 regions instead of 3, and the following makeup for additional POC members: 1 operator and service provider, 1 other business, 1 consumer, 1 non-profit public interest org, 5 regional -- regions specified as in the address registries (ARIN, APNIC, RIPE, Latin American, African). These new members would be in addition to the current composition, which should continue, with the possible addition of a non-voting advisory member appointed by the Universal Postal Union.

Has a long and worthwhile discussion of voting mechanism -- the language needs to be clearer in the proposal. Should prohibit any one person simultaneously holding more than one seat, or being in any way able to cast more than one vote. Rules concerning proxies must be clarified.


Mainstream business must have a significant voice in DNS policy. Eg International Chamber of Commerce or broadly focused trade groups. INTA believes business and trademark community should comprise at least one-half the representation on any policy making body.


Representation should extend past PAB. Should have greater mainstream business or non-technical consumer organizations. Representation should not be restricted to PAB members alone.

NTIA draft may affect things, but should be consistent with the gTLD-MoU principles.

More than a simple majority should be required for significant policy changes, perhaps, in some cases, complete consensus should be required.

MARQUES (European Brand Owners Association):

Views the idea that ISOC and IANA no longer have a veto as very positive step. Would like clarification of "Business organizations other than operators and service providers".

Would like a second nominee (besides INTA) to represent trademark/brand owners.

CASIE (Coalition for Advertising Supported Information and Entertainment):

Generally supports reorganization of POC, but "the categories of interest groups comprising the nine additional members are not properly defined, nor are they properly distributed". Believes that CASIE, or at least the community represented by CASIE, should have a seat on POC. Claims that "without the participation and support of brand owners, marketers and advertisers, it is unlikely any policies proposed by the POC will be effective".

PAB Comments:

There was some sentiment that POC should just be the excom of PAB, but more sentiment against it.

Continued concern that POC does not give enough information to PAB.

18 months seems about the right time frame for the proposal (this was before the Green Paper came out).

Rough consensus should be the deliberative model followed.

PAB will never agree on a particular list like:

Instead should go with "vague groups" like

PAB members should *not* be categorized into who they vote for, either by self-selection or otherwise -- several strong statements on this one.

3 "at large" members would be good. More than 3 geographic regions.

A proposal that ISOC, IANA, IAB, CORE have 1 seat each. But this was disagreed with later.

Summary compiled by Kent Crispin, PAB chair.