Re: PAB IMPORTANT: Straw Poll POC Composition

From: Antony Van Couvering (avc@netnamesusa.com)
Date: Fri Dec 05 1997 - 12:20:34 PST

At 08:29 PM 12/5/97 +0100, Javier SOLA wrote:

Antony,

With all respect, the last thing that I want to do is to interfere for in a call for consensus, whoever informal, but I think that this one does not reflect the proposal that has been presented. It represents your own points of view in some places, and, as you are the Chairman and you are putting forward a POC proposal, I think that it is unacceptable.

<snip>

Again, with all respect, your job as Chairman is not to ask the questions that *you* think PAB should answer, but to try to reflect the proposal that has been presented to PAB and offer choices.

Javier,

With all respect to you, remember that your job is to be the PAB rep on POC, not the POC rep on PAB.

My job is to find consensus in the PAB.  We now have an extraordinary situation where the POC is asking us to come up with something for them outside of our normal procedures.  I urged the PAB to discuss it, and at your urging I prepared a questionnaire as way to communicate initial impressions to POC.

This proposal has serious implications for the PAB, and I do not feel that questions as to how the PAB is governed should be left out of this discussion.  If it goes into effect, how the PAB is run will change dramatically.  My opinions on this are put forward as the PAB Chair -- I don't feel that they're personal, for whatever that's worth.  You may not see it this way, but I am concerned here to do my duty to the PAB.

The PAB is charged by the gTLD-MoU with providing advice and recommendations to POC, and it is left to PAB to decide how that advice should be given.  It is certainly not charged with providing yes or no responses to POC proposals on demand, nor do I think it should, especially on such a critical question.  The POC, on the other hand, has no duty to accept the PAB recommendations, and it can certainly ignore what it deems to be irrelevant.

If POC had consulted with us from the beginning as it formulated this proposal, we might now have a document that everyone would be happy voting "yes" or "no" to, or at least be further down the road toward doing so.  If in fact this proposal is only the beginning, as you have suggested before, then we need to be able to look at the whole of the proposal and make comments on it as we wish, *in order to make our advice and recommendations known* to the POC.  That is our duty under the gTLD-MoU.

POC is in a damned hurry about this, and that's fine, but I'm not going to put this to the membership for an up or down vote to a greater extent than I have already done.  It would not be a responsible move, and it's not PAB's role as defined in the gTLD-MoU -- in my opinion.  The proposal is brand new to most of us, and we need to talk about it. 

I think I have made it quite clear that I am asking members'
opinions on what seem to me to be the clear implications of this proposal -- for the gTLD-MoU process, and for the PAB also.  I have given every member a place for comments, and I hope they use it.  I have given every indication that these are not the questions that POC asked to be answered.

You might note that the responses so far have been (1) why do we need any sectorial representation at all, and (2) that functions of certain groups, not persons, should be appointed directly by such groups.  That is in addition to my comments which ask how the POC and PAB can be considered as separate bodies under this proposal.  You can see that there is a diversity of opinion here that is not reflected in the POC proposal.

My questionnaire is an attempt to bring out those opinions to the surface, in a form that is communicable to POC.  It may be that members see wider implications than I do, and I hope they express them.  I am not willing to make PAB a yes/no institution.  In my opinion, that would be an abdication of our responsibility.

Antony


At 08:29 PM 12/5/97 +0100, Javier SOLA wrote:
Antony,

With all respect, the last thing that I want to do is to interfere for in a call for consensus, whoever informal, but I think that this one does not reflect the proposal that has been presented. It represents your own points of view in some places, and, as you are the Chairman and you are putting forward a POC proposal, I think that it is unacceptable.

Please send another questionaire that sticks to the terms of the proposal.

Getting into details:

I find your first two questions extremelly biased and out of context.

>1. Should the PAB and POC become one organization, with the POC as the Executive Committee of PAB?
>[ ] Yes  [ ] No
>Comments:

The POC proposal does not at all imply this.

It says that a number of POC members may be elected by PAB (as the chosen constituency), not that those elected should run PAB. This would be one more right/duty of PAB. PAB electing POC members does not release PAB from being an advisory body with its own separate officials.

>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:

You are not helping the procedure at all by bringing here the subject to your own private opinions and discussion. Please stick to the proposal and/or alternatives. This subject will be discussed when the Charter is brought up.

>4. If the POC is expanded, should the PAB elect 9 of its 18 voting members?
>[ ] Yes  [ ] No
>Comments:

Nothing that may be answered here has any meaning. By NO somebody may mean *too many*, somebody may mean *not enough*
>
>5. If the PAB does elect POC members, should they be divided as follows?

>Should they be divided up at all? 

This question does not make sense here. The reason to increase POC is to have more groups represented, not to have more people.

> 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.

That is only the first question. The next question would be to propose other ways of getting geographical distribution without having specific seats.

>
>6.  Should the POC continue to have the following members appointed to it
>by the following organizations?

> b. Two persons appointed by IANA
>  [ ] Too many  [ ] Too few
>  Comments:  

What if somebody thinks that the number is just right ? There is an option missing.

>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.

Again, with all respect, your job as Chairman is not to ask the questions that *you* think PAB should answer, but to try to reflect the proposal that has been presented to PAB and offer choices.

If you include your own opinions in the questions, then the answers are useless to anybody.

Please send another questionaire.

Javier



Javier SOLA  -   jsola@aui.es
Director   -  Asociacion de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.aui.es>
Observer - Policy Oversight Committee of the gTLD-MoU <http://www.gtld-mou.org>

Tel:  902-21.03.23                       Fax: 91-344.14.25
Av. Alberto Alcocer, 46 Dup. 5º C - 28016 Madrid
    Comte d'Urgell, 143 1º 1ª - 08036 Barcelona

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:14 PST