On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:
> I don't say that out of "PAB-ambition". It just seems to me the
> natural outcome of the structure as proposed. It doesn't mean that
> PAB is "in charge". Instead it means that PABs role is to collect
> input from the public, mold that into policy proposals, and to give
> those proposals to POC to act upon as it sees fit. In that sense,
> PAB would assume a leadership role. It's a very important role; but
> POC's role is important as well. And of course, so are the registrars.
>
> Forgive me for running on like this...
mr.crispin thank you very much for your interesting and importend
explanations
i would like to give other people the chance to replay to it as they may
want to
only this i may to ad at the moment to my series of questions
if we see what hapens until now than the main input and work was not made
by the public but by a small group of people who hase hade inaf competence
and knowledge-of course they are not "allknowing" so they accept
sugestions and corections from the public ok the public was than involvd
and hase made some useful and practical contributions
my question is
would the public be inaf comepetent to "guid the process"-i understand
guid hier in a positve meaning as you forsee ?
is the public wich will make in the future the crucial input or would it
be again a group of smart people who would or musst think for others-as
you have say the pab was not really making a "strong" input until now
so i see the "competence and autorithy"-(autorithy = +) of public
*in the matter itslef*(the matter may be dns but also the policy of gtld
process) the most importend aspekt how pab would place him
self in the gtld-mou process/system
hier we have again the same situation
who rules the people or the government ?
the people would say "we rule so we chose the governemtns and how the
government works" and government would say "we rule becouse we do all the
work and peopel just say yes or no"
so you say "the public internet community" should lead the process-nothing
bad with that and "process policy and oversight" should be the main isue
of pab-the name say it for its self at least for the first part of policy
:-) but in reality the poc was one who hase made the serious
sugestions about reorganisation of poc and so of the wholle process itself
so i see hier a very strong position of poc-i would wonder if they wanted
to give it up and i see hier a strong and importend work done by core-in
its field
so i would sugest that as you say all organisations POC CORE and PAB are
importend and they are working together as aspekts of the wholle
so i like your aproches and i learn from it very much and i may agree on
it in most aspekts the only thing i like to request yo when you do the
theoretical/practical work about the work and structure of pab to do it in
such way that no other aspekt/organisation of the wholle process speack
poc core would would get a "bad feeling" that a probably incompetent pab
like to have the "say" without beeing really competent
the job the poc hase done and the job core is doing was not really much
influanced by pab - until now
so we have to find where are the strengts of pab and what is
"pab natural" role
beeing the "public brain and voice" seems natural for a future pab and
i hope it would be a "good brain" and work well with other
"organisational brains" of the gtld-mou process
thank you again and i hope what hapens now is also a good basic work
and provides expiraince for the more dificult task of
internet selfgovernance at large
sascha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:16 PST