Perry,
I have to disagree. I think Jim is full of himself, argumentative,
pendantic and pushy (I will get flamed, he can't help it), but he's
basically right. The PAB needs more representatives and it needs new
blood. What's more, that's the only way to move forward.
The measure of any organization is results, and POC has not delivered. Not
only that, they have been very stingy with realistic assessments of their
ability to deliver. The PAB has not delivered either, but I think that's
more forgivable -- we were given a broken instrument, due to the dumb
policy of making people sign a long ponderous document, not that I have any
particular problem with it.
As to the gTLD-MoU being dead in the water, that's very hard to say. You
certainly can't get any perspective on the matter by reading all the
incestuous little mailing lists, which is what I do mostly and I'll bet Jim
does too.
One good result of the Magaziner putsch is that it really jolted the real
powers into awareness. Now we are going to see what non-U.S. governments
have to say about the U.S. asserting ownership of the Internet, and also
what the still-powerful Internet elements in major U.S. tech companies have
to say about the bottom-up approach of the Internet getting stood on its.
If the gTLD-MoU is going to get resuscitated, it will come from the heat
that these two groups generate.
Heat there will be. Question is, will the gLTD-MoU be seen as a viable
alternative? To be frank, I don't think that it will be, by Americans
anyway, with the current leadership. That's not to say that a new group
couldn't do any better, but when your team gets the stuffing knocked out of
them, you fire the coach and get some new blood. It presents a new look
and does actually inspire some new vigor. It also allows you to give "good
news" to the outside.
Well, the POC isn't going to resign. CORE has reopened their membership,
although I can't imagine any early takers. The best hope for this is the
PAB, and the way to invigorate the PAB is to get some new blood in here.
So although I groan at the prospect of the self-justifying hair-splitting
arguments that Jim excels at, I think it's good that he's here, and that he
contributes.
There is no doubt that the gTLD-MoU movement is in a crisis; anyone who
says it isn't is in deep denial. On the other hand, everything else is a
worse alternative -- the Green Paper is a real mess, NSI is transparently
in it for themselves, and eDNS people are deluded.
The big problem has been, in my opinion, a series of bungles designed to
"protect" the gTLD-MoU from undesirable elements. However right POC might
have been in their assessment of these elements, you can't have democracy
without the idiots.
The PAB is the way out of this. I say open it up, let all the dumb flamers
in, because with them will come new reasoned voices. Then it *will* be a
real forum, and its recommendations will have real weight. I have made
this point before, and it has been met with disdain, but it's the only way
to open things up, and opening them up is the only way to preserve the good
parts of the gTLD-MoU.
Antony
At 04:47 PM 2/4/98 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
>Jim Dixon writes:
>> The gTLD MOU is absolutely dead in the water at this point.
>
>Go away, Jim. With help like yours, we really don't need Ira
>Magaziner.
>
>
>Perry
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:22 PST