On Fri, Dec 19, 1997 at 01:21:09AM +0100, Sascha Ignjatovic wrote:
>
>
> > > Bob Helfant wrote
> > >
> > > >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"?
>
>
> good question !!
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > POC has oversight of CORE; PAB advises POC; therefore the oversight
> > is transitive.
>
>
> so hier is the waight in poc
> the pab may think "this is wrong with core-registrars " and it may
> "advise" poc on it and poc discusses this back with pab and core and if
> poc comes to the conclusions "everything is ok - nothing needed to
> be changed" than core-registrar would continue so this mean the pab
> hase no "oversight capacity" on core but "advisory capacity"
Whatever. PAB will select a substantial fraction of the POC members,
and will provide input to all POC members, and thus forms an integral
part of the oversight framework. It isn't the only part, and it
doesn't have total control, but it definitely has an oversight role,
and has a lot of de facto power in that role.
> > Here's a concrete (but hypothetical) example: POC
> > has recieved much input from the community that certain activities on the
> > part of certain registrars should be considered unethical. POC asks
> > PAB for advice; PAB recommends that policies be changed; as a result
> > of these policy changes some registrars go out of business.
>
>
> when the poc accepts the recomendations from pab
> when not than the rolle of pab is advisory
>
> anyway the poc is hier the "central" autority
> -the next thing some one may say is
>
> "pab would vote the representants on poc so the pab is the central
> autority"
>
> i am not speacking hier in favour of core but im also not interested in a
> "war BETWEEN pab and core" and than maybe between poc pab and core
>
> we have seen reactions form core people on such positions wich puts the
> core from the beginning on "bad side"
>
>
> 1.where is the "misstrust" to core comming from ?
>
> 2.where is the "competence" from pab comming from ?
>
> 3.is it not that cooperation is better than deviation ?
>
>
> for my part i think that good and trustful-with "give first your trust"
> principle personal realation is more worth than any writen agreements
> etc.
>
> so we should be ablle to THINK POSITIVE about each other
> not from he beginning see "everything" supicious-but one should also not
> be naive and be "eathen" for brackfast by some one very "clever" :-)
>
> if we give the core the trust it diserves than we would have probably a
> moralic good basis to deal with them in the future
>
> so the competence and organisation of the pab is hier again the main
> questions and so also the principles wich guides pab
>
> so i am hier for a POSITIVE aproach from pab
>
> i hope this principle would guid us not the "i roul over you
> becouse you could be bad"
>
> or
>
> "they are stupid we are smart lets start" :-)
I know, like, trust, and respect several of the registrars, and I have
no bad experiences with any of them. I have worked as hard as anyone
to make them succeed. The issue of oversight really has nothing to do
with that. It's more an issue of setting up a structure that will
1) withstand outside scrutiny
2) hold up even when bad people are involved,
or when times get very tough
It's trivial to set up a structure that works well when everyone is
happy and nice and working together. It is a lot more challenging to
develop a structure that holds up when things get tough.
The fact is that the registrars are being put in a potentially very
competitive position, with some very large, deep-pocket players and
some very small players. Almost certainly some of them are not going
to make it, and their $10000 plus will be down the drain. Life will
go on -- this is only business -- but there is potential for extreme
emotion in this.
We members of PAB and POC will know and like many of the registrars,
but the fact is that our first duty is to the public, not CORE, even
though we don't know the public like we do our friends. Right now of
course we all want things to succeed, and we all work together. But
at some point our different roles in the overall structure will come
into play. POC will be asked to set a policy -- say to set minimum
prices for domain names, or some such thing, to keep some of the small
registrars from far away places from going out of business. Then
things will be very hard, because the public interest won't be the
same as the registrars' interest.
PAB will be in the thick of such decisions. Right now IAHC/iPOC/POC
has really lead things. But I believe that PABs role will increase
substantially over the next few years, because it is the body that
really has the potential of involving the "public".
-- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:16 PST