Antony
I have never thought at things in this way.
But at a second reading of your post, I start thinkng you're right.
Roberto
You wrote:
> 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 - 03:22:23 PST