Sascha Ignjatovic wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Dave Crocker / IMC wrote:
>
> > 2. Those named by IANA do not "represent" IANA. They are given no
> > direction from IANA and to not consult with IANA for approval of the
> > participant's positions within the POC. In fact, communication between
> > those named by IANA and IANA are pretty minimal.
>
> mr.crocker what is the "philosophy" behind this system ?
> i mean what is the "background" and right understanding for such
> arangements or what is the "benefit" of it
Dear Sascha,
The idea was that IANA, ISOV and somehow IAB were appointing POCers that in
fact represnted the "Interent community".
Under the various new proposals this task is asumed, partially or completely,
byt the POCers appointed by PAB.
>
>
> > Hence I think that Rick's beliefs and opinions in this are similar to those
> > held by many others but, in fact, they do not apply to the current topic.
>
> so what is the diference between a nonvoting member and a (two) voting
> members
ITU and WIPO should be non-voting as both are intergovernmental UN-chartered
agencies. Giving them a vote has long worried both the Internet community,
that braodly supports the Net's self-governemnt (Iin fact I stated several
times that *I* had serious reservations about these organiztions being voting
members) and even its member States, that somehow resent that having these
voting seats amount to "them* (the member states) voting on POC, and most of
them prefer to stay aside.
They should therefore retain the voice, because they have a role, but without
a vote.
There was also the proposal to reduce all naming organizatons to non-voting
setas. The "Community" is to vote, so PAB-elected appointees should all be
voting members. There is also a broad consensus in POC that CORE should also
appoint voting members. Then there is a part of us (including me) that would
prefer clearly separating the two souls of POC membership: The community reps
are elected (by PAB) and vote; the nanming organiztions, which have a concrete
and important role to play in this process appoint (not elect) reps (I favor
one per org) that have voice but not vote.
Two notes on that: First, I only remember one formal vote within POC. So the
difference is not that dramatic so far. Second, all this is explained for the
sake of rationally organising POC membership (community reps devided into
specific consituencies; organisantions that have a special role to claim. Ecah
one with a clear and differentiated st of rules as to nomination, number of
reps, election and vting rules). Ok. very rational. But perhaps (and i say
perhaps) a little bit radiacal an experiment. And experiments sometimes work,
and sometimes don't. For this reason is not a bad idea trying to work out a
"compromise": during at least a transitional period, the organisations that
had been behind this process form the vbery beginning and that have a clear
role to play should keep double seats and voting rights. If this work, we
could discuss furhter reform later....
(please notice that I awfully mix my own thought s with POC's views and/or
dicsussions. I don't try to be coherent, buy to excplain the issues at stake
and the solutions put forward)
>
> why isp's should have 2 voting members and iana should have one voting
> member?
Because it is not "IANA" (ie, Jon Postel) but "two community rpresentatives
appointed by IANA (Perry and Dave, then Glenn and Willie). If we provide for
an alternative way to represnt the net community interests /and precisely this
is the core of the reform) we need rethinking IANA's role.
>
> if iana hase a way to ashure the "right" direction in benefit for all
> i have no problem with having iana have one/two voting/nonvoting seet/s
> on poc
IANA still has to sign gTLD-MoU amendments. And, well, IANA can always decide
that our TÑLDs are not anymore part of the root... (even if this is very unlikely)
>
> for me iana represents the "good old man" making shure that everything
> runs properly in the right direction
You got it. So it has to be represented in an appropriate way. But the Net has
evolved and besides the usual "good all men" we face the need to bring aboard
a mider and heterogeneous new keds on the block,- well, not so new by the way ;-)
>
> now samthing "new" should come so we need a little more explanation on
> this "new" thing
>
> would you like to give as more explanation of it
Well, I'm not dave but I tried. He will certainly come to the rescue, btw.
Amadeu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:15 PST