Peter Mott wrote:
>
> Peter Mott wrote
>
> >> 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.
>
> Paul Kane wrote
>
> >Ahhhh .... the art of politics .... :-)
>
> >In political terms having a broad representation builds political
> >credibility.
>
> I see distinct PR problems stemming from a move to give influential
> or noisy organisations seats on POC as an attempt to gain
> credibility.
>
> They are likely to be organisations claiming to represent others
> whom they have not even consulted.
>
Agreed, a very valid point. Claims of representation are just that and
are a reason for retaining recognised organisations/associations on the
POC and supplementing them with representatives elected from PAB.
>
> Smaller and non US resident signatories in particular are likely to
> feel their participation in PAB is being undermined.
>
The POC has responded to this claim. The number of US centric POC
members has dramatically changed. It is important for all to have a
voice, large and small, US and non-US and PAB is the right forum for
such discussions and consensus building.
>
> Personally, I think all POC seats should be elected from PAB.
At this embriolic stage, stability is of paramount importance as the
gTLD movement evolves. There is a powerful lobby who don't want the MoU
to succeed. If membership to POC was based exclusively on election, I
bet the "anti-lobby" would join in droves specifically kill off this
plan.
>
> This way every organisation,no matter what size or where they
> reside, has equal opportunity for participation.
>
> The participation I speak of is in decision making by the way.
>
I respect your integrity and believe all should be eligible to be part
of the executive, but stability is required .... else see above.
> PAB at this time is limited by the gTLD-MoU to the provision
> of advice to POC on matters of policy.
>
A vital element provided the channel of communication is open.
The failing I believe is that PAB has been kept in the dark with regard
to iPOC's thoughts. The need to balance the need to know and executive
confidentiality also needs to be respected but not to the extent of
secrecy. It is that damage that is being repaired now by the RFCs.
>
> This is crippling PAB and must be changed if empowerment
> of the signatories is to be realised.
>
I believe change is coming, but it must be a gradual process.
Regards
Paul Kane.
Personal Opinion.
PS. I'm off this afternoon trying to stem an European anti-gTLD
movement. The gTLD proposal is not perfect but it is the best
alternative to the current NSI monopoly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:15 PST