Javier,
Your comments are inappropriate.
The POC wants input from PAB, Anthony made it clear it was an informal
straw poll. Some of the questions were slanted, but they can be ignored
by the respondent. The point is he was fulfilling his duty as Chair upon
the request of POC Chair. Now unless POC takes the initiative, the new
US Gov RFC will be out before any PAB comment are received. We need to
build consensus and we need it NOW.
This brings me to my second concern....... the lack of information to
and from POC to PAB via POC observers. If a plant is left uncultivated
it becomes a weed, a weed without roots, dies. PAB are the roots to POC
that should be feeding information to and receiving information from POC
to cultivate policy. Currently we are in the dark. The PAB debates on
this list are informative but we don't know how much or little is being
fed to POC. Fortunately some POC Members subscribe to PAB.
My company's clients are only kept informed by my participating in gTLD
meetings and speaking with POC members, government officials, WIPO
delegates and PAB members directly and then REPORTING to them. The
recent RFC on the ACP process is a perfect example. The ACP is an
important element of the contract to which applicants under the new
gTLDs will be bound. Without consensus the contract could be dead and
each Registrar exposed, killing off the MoU. Already some influential
constituencies are saying no new gTLDs until the dispute resolution
procedures are finalised. POC needs support on this and it needs it
NOW. In the next couple of weeks there will be a Third ACP Draft RFC,
please invite all on PAB and CORE to express their views in public.
It is the role of the POC observers to ensure the free flow of
information between the membership and the executive to build consensus
not personal egos nor conflict of interests.
------
Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>
> 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?
> [X] Yes [ ] No
> Comments:
>
Over sufficient time to enable the first phase to take effect- 18 months
seems about right. The POC proposal would build greater accountability
and stability in the DNS. A Public RFC should be issued ASAP to notify
all deliberating this issue at gov level that POC proposes to represent
a broader internet community. It was implied by IAHC in Geneva, Kuala
Lumpur, and POC last week in Brussels. The specific representation of
POC being the subject of "rough" consensus.
thanks
Paul Kane
Personal opinion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:14 PST