Peter Mott wrote:
>
> > Paul Kane wrote:
> >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.
>
> In my view playing with the makeup of POC does little to build credibility
> or provide broader representation.
>
> It may give the appearance of such, but thats about all.
Ahhhh .... the art of politics .... :-)
In political terms having a broad representation builds political
credibility. Most governments are formed with less than 20% support from
the eligible electorate, but because of broad representation they have
credibility.
>
> Broader representation will occur when substantial numbers of organisations
> sign the gTLD-MoU.
Agreed.
> This can only occur when the merits of doing so
> are effectively marketed and the benefits explained in plain language
> to decision makers around the globe.
The subject has been discussed for around 3 years now, first on newdom,
then IAHC-discuss and now on a whole host of lists. I think most
decision makers are aware of the gTLD-MOU, the problem was with the
presentation of the IAHC proposal. It was a PR disaster and ostracised
many. Fortunately, since iPOC bridges have been built to many
influential camps. The support for the process and iPOCs marketing
success has resulted in ~90 Registrars endorsing the gTLD plan with many
others lining up to join in the next wave. Technically it can be done,
18 months ago Simon Higgs had operating shared registry code,
politically though he didn't have consensus. The key now is to invite
organisations to endorse the MoU with the "carrot" of having the
potential to sit at the decision making table. To ensure effective
information flow to/from PAB/POC is in my view the crux of any consensus
building process.
>
> POC should be focused on achieving the above, and ensuring the needs of
> the existing signatories are met first.
I agree existing signatories must have their voice heard and change must
be evolutionary and not revolutionary, hence my suggested timescale of
18 months before opening up POC. Let's get this proposal working first,
iron out the wrinkles, show the "community" the sound basis upon which
it is build and then evaluate its development.
Regards
Paul Kane.
Personal View.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:15 PST