At 09:14 AM 1/10/98 +1300, Peter Mott wrote:
>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.
The above is a pretty good summary of my own intent when participating in
the gTLD MoU structure's definition. The desire was to have a way of
assessing "community views" as the IETF does. However the IETF has a very
different history and operational base, so that it was felt a distinct,
formal body was needed as the specific "reference" for community interest.
Hence, the PAB very much was/is intended to embody the public interest.
But note the word I used. "Embody" is only meaningful in terms of the
bodies that are present.
In other words, the way you each represent the public interest is by having
a generic desire to do just that, but a specific desire to represent your
own interests. By having a wide range of PAB members, we get a wide range
of self-interests. And THAT is the essence of a real public interest...
As to the concern over signing the MoU, I'll note that it is an absurdly
low barrier, given that there are no contractual obligations, so that
requiring signature primarily means that a) you've given it some review
and, therefore, have a basic ability to participate in discussions about
it, and b) want to work on improving things. One can only wonder that
anyone would find this a prolem.
At 10:47 AM 1/10/98 +1300, Peter Mott wrote:
>It will show the world that at least one significant part of the gTLD-MoU
>organisation is a sham, and therfore discredit the entire effort.
Peter, when the PAB has formed a consensus view, it has been a significant
contribution in my opinion. In particular note that as soon as the PAB
made a suggestion to the POC that it participate in the POC, the suggestion
was implemented.
While the 'average' level of discussion on this list might be a source of
frustration, this is often true for public mailing lists. On the other
hand, my own opinion is that this group has been functioning pretty well.
And the voting mechanism is in fact quite innovative.
Yes, I think it can do better. Yes I agree that it is often unfocussed
and/or unproductive. Let me suggest that that concern be a basis for
considering improvements, rather than assessing waste.
d/
--------------------
Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205
675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:18 PST