Dear PAB,
In order to assist the POC in formulating their RFC concerning a change in
the composition of POC, I would like to propose a straw poll -- *not
official, not binding* -- to answer these questions. These are not the
questions POC would necessarily ask; they are questions that I think the
PAB should ask itself, and answer, as a result of the proposal:
1. Should the PAB and POC become one organization, with the POC as the
Executive Committee of PAB?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Comments:
2. If the PAB and POC are separate bodies, should the PAB reps on POC have
a duty to report to PAB on POC proceedings, formal or informal, unless
specifically requested not to do so by POC?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Comments:
3. Should the POC be expanded to bring in other constituencies
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Comments:
4. If the POC is expanded, should the PAB elect 9 of its 18 voting members?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Comments:
5. If the PAB does elect POC members, should they be divided as follows?
Should they be divided up at all? Consider if you think these are the
groups that should have representation reserved to them, or if the
definitions are too rigid, or too vague. Consider if you think that they
might have too much or too little voting strength. Consider if you think
that geographical distribution is a good thing.
a. Operators and service providers - 3 representatives.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Comments:
b. Business organizations other than operators and service providers - 2
representatives
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Comments:
c. Consumers - 1
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Comments:
d. At large members distributed geographically:
i. Americas - 1
ii. Europe, Africa and the Middle East - 1
iii. Asia-Pacific - 1
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Comments:
6. Should the POC continue to have the following members appointed to it
by the following organizations?
a. Two persons appointed by ISOC
[ ] Too many [ ] Too few
Comments:
b. Two persons appointed by IANA
[ ] Too many [ ] Too few
Comments:
c. Two persons appointed by IAB
[ ] Too many [ ] Too few
Comments:
d. Two persons appointed by CORE
[ ] Too many [ ] Too few
Comments:
e. One person appointed by INTA
[ ] Too many [ ] Too few
Comments:
f. One person appointed by WIPO (with non-voting status)
[ ] Too many [ ] Too few
Comments:
g. One person appointed by ITU (with non-voting status)
[ ] Too many [ ] Too few
Comments:
Thank you. Please note again that these are the questions *I* think should
be answered by the PAB. If you have additional comments, or think that
these questions are wrong-headed or miss the point, please say that too.
The point is to say what you think.
This is a critically important juncture of the gTLD-MoU movement. Your
voice will, I'm convinced, be heard, and you have a chance to shape what
will happen. Please make your voice heard, and please give POC some advise
and recommendation, and let them know that we can depended upon to help
them with their difficult tasks.
Antony Van Couvering
PAB Chair
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:14 PST