dear mr.crocker
On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Dave Crocker / IMC wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Has anyone noticed that quite a bit of time has passed during which the PAB
> has yet to conduct any meaningful discussion about the CONTENT of the
> proposal that David Maher submitted for POC composition?
>
> Process is important but it is not the goal. The PAB is spending all of
> its time debating matters of process and essentially none on content. This
> is not helpful for the utility or credibility of this group.
>
> I would strongly suggest that the group instead consider the merits of the
> proposal.
you are complitely right
as you see the "poc reform" proposal wich puts the limelight on pab
is a little "to much" for the pab at the moment-but i see it some how also
"not so bad"
> Is it fair and reasonable?
the proposals dont specify the "structurisation" and composition of pab
for this purporses-puting such expectation and competence into pab
but exactly this is also a very importend aspect if the pab would be
qualifide to act as "elector" of public internet organisations and persons
representatives to poc or even elect poc members
> Is it likely to accomplish its goals? (By the way, is everyone clear
> what those goals are?)
this is exactly one importend point
without the clerifaying mail from mr.amadeu it was hard to "know" all the
facts and aspects if you are not a really gtld-dns internet policy
profesional
> Is it acceptably simple to understand and administer?
i wish there would be a html based discussion education and opinon
building process samthing like gtld-mou.org but more on the level
of discussion and opinon building in the maters of gtld-mou poc/pab
matters
it is dificult to folow all the aspects just on the mail basis
we need a "knowledge production/organisation/and presentation" system
which will help us to organize all the topics in a structured and
hirarchical system-probably open to EVERYONE but only able to discuss if
you are a part of it !-there is nothing to hide than our
ignorence and incopetence but this is human and we all are eager to
learn and come forward so there is nothing to shame about
> How does it compare to other proposals, such as the one that Robert
> Shearing <http://www.gtld-mou.org/notice-97-01/0009.html>?
the proposal of mr.robert shearing sounds good-this aspects for one
nonvoting mebers from isoc iana core itu i find a little "strange" :-)
puts a lot of competence and ecpectation on pab without having a idea
about pab and its situation at the moment and in general
so not realy complete without the "pab aspect"
if somebody make such proposals than this proposal should also have a
"idea" about the composition and structure of pab to make them posible to
acomplish this task
so hier we come again to process and structure matter but now with a
broather requayerements :-)
> etc.
>
> d/
> --------------------
> Dave Crocker dcrocker@imc.org
> Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253
> 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205
> Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org
thanks
sascha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:15 PST