When did PAB's single function of advising POC change to "oversight of
CORE" or make decisions that could "result in some CORE registrars going
out of business"?
Bob Helfant
GLobeComm, Inc.
At 08:26 AM 12/18/97 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>[This is a little long. But the issues are complicated...]
>Second, since one of the primary purposes of PAB is oversight of the
>CORE registrars (a largely commercial group), it is especially
>important that PAB remain aloof from any improper entanglement with
>CORE.
>
>However, the issue of conflict of interest vis a vis CORE oversight is
>a totally different matter, and, IMO, the IETF does not provide a good
>model. PAB is essentially part of a regulatory framework. Its
>primary responsibility, therefore, is to the "public", not to CORE.
>For example, PAB may be called upon to make decisions that could
>result in some CORE registrars going out of business. A registrar
>with lots of money (say that NSI signed the MoU, for example) could
>sway PAB (or POC) in lots of subtle ways, not only with respect to
>issues with the public, but with respect to issues dealing with other
>registrars.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:16 PST