>Does PAB exist to represent only the views of signatories, or does it
>have a larger responsibility?
It cant represent the needs of those who dont know about the MoU,
haven't signed it, or are not participating in discussions.
This is an obvious fact to me. You can pretend to represent the
needs of the public, but in reality unless you have some way
of listening to and understanding their views then you have no
way of even beginning to "represent" them.
>Before Peter brought this up my automatic assumption has been the
>later, based on the wording in the MoU about "public trust". That is,
>PAB (and POC and to some extent CORE) have signed and agreement (the
>MoU) to, as best they can, take on the responsibility of representing
>the public -- even if they smell bad, and spit in our face.
Reading the MoU, one could come to this conclusion.
My view is that the principle the MoU is attempting to gain support
for is
"that generic top level domains are resources which no one
entity should be able to claim exclusive rights to, and in fact
should be available for the use of everybody, those participating
today and in the future."
>Peter now presents an alternate view, one that I believe is not
>supported by the MoU. I would not have signed the MoU, in fact, if
>I didn't believe the phrase "public trust" had important
>implications. So I believe there is a strong ethical component to an
>argument for an open list. However, Peter's point of view has an
>ethical component, as well.
The MoU promotes market driven self regulation. This implies private
control, rather than inter-government control.
The notion of an organisation existing to "serve the public" is a
political fantasy.
PAB needs to find ways of promoting the benefits of itself so existing
participants will stay and contribute more, and others not part of
the organisation will want to be a part of it.
Telling the people we represent the world does not inspire such things.
Its too vague. People want to know whats in it for them, and what they
can do to make a difference.
>> Access to correspondence is in my view a priviledge of those who have
>> committed to working with each other to support the objectives they
>> have agreed to.
>> Making it available to a wider audience would in my view provide
>> a resource for those who would seek to discredit the organisation.
>Is this true? I'm not sure it is -- anybody would have the option of
>researching any particular claim in full context. It is just as likely,
>in my view, that an open archive would provide a resource for supporters.
I see nothing in the archives of this list which would inspire me to
join. It is not in my view a strong selling point. In fact quite the
opposite.
If you want people to say "I support PAB" without joining, then maybe.
I dont call this support. Support is signatures on MoU.
>On the other hand, we have taken a PR beating because the list is
>closed.
>From a few noisy people, who have no intention of signing the MoU
Forget about them.
>> As we also have competitor organisations, they would have an open
>> door into our policy making machine. This seems unwise to me.
>If we could in fact guarantee that the list was private, then this
>would be a good point -- we lose any advantage of surprise. But, as
>has been pointed out, our competitors actually have access to the
>list anyway.
Some ex-POC'ers also have come to the conclusion that making the list
available for public reading wouldnt change anything as PAB has always
leaked information.
The fact is that we have a very confused internal and external market.
I dont see this improving by exposing the internal confusion to the
world.
Keep the internal confusion internal, and work on eliminating it. Manage
external confusion seperatly with a media communications tool. Probably
a small team of people with experience in this area would be best.
For me its not about secrecy. Its about unity and coherence.
>> It may also inhibit participation by discouraging PAB folk to be less
>> than candid about what they say, knowing it will soon be available for
>> the world to read.
>Yes, this is a possibility. I note, though, that this has simply not
>been a problem in the IETF.
How would you know? This is the problem. Its really hard to measure.
Making the list public does not affect those of us who are extroverts
but those of us less extroverted may feel uncomfortable with expressing
their views to a forum which extends beyond their peers.
These peoples views matter, and represent a significant loss if not
expressed. This is because these folk are often the more considered
thinkers amongst us.
>> If I could see a compelling argument for the benefits of hanging
>> our correspondence out for all and sundry to read, I am prepared
>> to review my position.
>Aside from the ethical considerations, there is the issue of practical
>advantages. There are two primary advantages I see: 1) we diffuse a
>PR problem; and 2) we provide ourselves with a organizational memory.
So get ourselves a web board with all of the threads on it and allow
each PAB participant to login and read them.
>This last point is the most important concrete benefit. How many
>people remember the original discussion about charters, for example?
>Several times in the past it has been mentioned that it would be good
>if new members had access to an archive of previous mail. People
>have written lengthy documents and posted them to the list -- without
>an archive they disappear. An email archive is actually an extremely
>useful tool for PAB members.
Agree very strongly. 2Day Internet operates web based forums for the
New Zealand Telecommunications Users Assn and others. This is great
for looking back on where we have come from.
It does not however, need to be available to the public.
>The possibility of a private archive for PAB members only has been
>mentioned. It is my considered opinion that it is a practical
>impossibility to maintain privacy across 200 people on the net, and
>it is not even worth trying. The benefit here is sort of a negative
>one -- we get to avoid the work of trying to maintain privacy.
I am not interested in maintaining privacy. I want to differentiate
very clearly the benefits of participation.
Where in anything we are doing is a carrot to join up?
regards
Peter Mott
2Day Internet Limited.
http://www.2day.net.nz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:18 PST