Kent,
Amazing things are happening in Washington, but I have to leave and will
not have connectivity to tell you everything until tuesday.
Amadeu, as Peter is not in Washington, could you please brief PAB excom and
PAB of what is happening?
The main idea is to consolidate an independent IANA in spite of what the
USG is trying to do.
Javier
PD. I will write again if I have a chance.
If you get this soon, send me a telephone number, or to Amadeu, so that we
can talk to you.
At 00:44 23/01/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Regarding David Maher's proposal:
>
>I have indicated previously my preference that it be recast in terms
>that give a more concrete definition of PAB's total role in the MoU
>structure.
>
>This isn't exactly a fair criticism -- it's really a variation on the
>"rock" game (*). A fair criticism would be a constructive one, with
>some proposal for PAB's role.
>
>It is my belief, unfortunately, that coming up with such a proposal
>is something of an academic exercise until we have a better idea what
>the USG position will be, and, further, what the relationship between
>the MoU and IANA will be.
>
>If the MoU structure is decisive or at least seriously influential in
>overall gTLD issues, if the ACPs turn out to be an important and exemplary
>venue for dispute resolution, or the CORE SRS becomes a central
>repository for most if not all gTLD information, then PAB has a strong
>potential to become an important public policy forum.
>
>If, on the other hand, the MoU group is just one of a potentially
>large competing set of registries, then PAB and POC will have little
>public policy influence, and most policy decisions will concern CORE
>business policy. I think this last alternative is somewhat unlikely,
>and that CORE/PAB/POC will be an influential force in gTLD policy, at
>the least.
>
>One of the things that will make it influential, I believe, is
>its openness to public input. So, even though the situation is
>confused and uncertain, it still seems worthwhile to iron out some
>kind of meaningful group response to David's proposal.
>
>Hopefully the following proposition will spark some discussion:
>
>I propose that we accept David's proposal in spirit, with perhaps
>some modification to the details of the voting scheme, with this one
>addition/clarification: That nominees, like POC members from the other
>organizations, not necessarily be from organizations that have signed
>the MoU, and that further, PAB will solicit proposals for qualified
>nominees through the gtld-discuss list and perhaps other fora.
>
>Note that the way David's proposal reads, each PAB member can nominate
>someone. So this last action is actually something that PAB members
>can do individually -- I could, for example, post to the gtld-discuss
>list that I am interested in nominating an individual to serve on the
>POC as a consumer representative, and that I am soliciting likely
>candidates. However, I think there is some considerable value to a
>*policy* of soliciting nominees externally -- I think it would be a
>powerful inducement for signing the MoU.
>
>Comments, please.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>(*) "Here's a nice rock" "I don't like that rock, give me another one."
>
>
>--
>Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "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
>
>
Javier SOLA jsola@aui.es
Director - Asociacion de Usuarios de Internet - <http://www.aui.es>
PAB Observer - Policy Oversight Committee of the gTLD-MoU -
<http://www.gtld-mou.org>
Las opiniones expresadas son personales y pueden no coincidir con las de
otros miembros del Policy Oversight Committee.
Tel: 902-21.03.23 Fax: 91-344.14.25
c/ Alberto Alcocer, 46 Duplicado - 5º C
28016 MADRID
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:20 PST