dear mr.amadeu
i like to thank you in my name for offering such broad and deep insight
into the matters of gtld-mou process and related-to be solved questions
i have to read your mail several time and try to understand and remember
all the aspects you have "asambled"
the "poc reform" concept wich puts a lot of "competence" in a future pab
may be the right and well thougth way to go
now the pab hase to become more profesional
i hope that working together and with the help and involvment from
"outside" the pab will grow into a competent partner in the gtld-mou
process
one thing is clear to me
the pab can only elect poc members and sugest the organisational
composition of the poc if they hase the broad and deep insight and
competence to do so
just to "have the power" without competence is not as useful as it should
be
so we have realy to work out a profesional and stabli infrastructure
to be ablle to deal with such chalenge
we should think in the future about pab under the demand from this new
situation wich puts a lot of presure expectation and competence in pab
thank you all
sascha
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
> You asked whether someone wanted ato inlude a different set of questions.
> Probably you did not intend me to answer that, but here there go my preferred
> set of questions
>
> Does PAB believe that POC needs to reform ist composition?
>
> If yes, do you believe that POC needs to include representative of other
> interests/groups/constiuencies/stakeholders than those currently represented?
>
> If yes, which groups/interests..../... do you believe that should be
> represented within POC?
>
> Is there any established organization represntng the interests/groups../.. you
> have selected? Which ones?
>
> Do you accept and understand the role of the current naming organiztions
> (ISOC, IABA, ITU...)? (or better: do you believee that the current naming
> aorganizations should keep that role after the reform?
>
> Do you believe that PAB is the rgiht constituency for electing POC members?
>
> Do you agree with the mixed approcach (half PAB/half naming organizations)
> that POC proposals puts forward? (do you want more PAB; less PAB more Naming
> orgs; less naming Orgs...)
>
> Do you agree with how the POC proposal devides PAB-elected POC apoointess'
> representation?
>
> If not, would you prefer a more detailed one (telcos; ISPs; end-users;
> advertising interests; IP law; ....) or a more vague one?
>
> Do you agree with having "at large" PAB appointees?
>
> Do you agree with such appointees being elected by geographical slots?
>
> ...and so forth.
>
> OK. That's all for now.
>
> Amadeu
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:15 PST