On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Bob Helfant wrote:
> >Fine, I'll "support" this request AS LONG AS the ISOC also gets as many
> >votes as the members it represents, which depending on your view of the
> >world is 5,000 or 40,000,000 -- then of course every other representative
> >organization should get the same.
>
> We could go with Senate and House model and have one side of PAB where each
> signatory gets one vote and one side where each organization gets say one
> vote per 1000 members.
It is completely impractical to have individual memberships. I don't
know or care how the gTLD MOU is being interpreted now, but allowing
individuals to sign the MOU and vote is mad -- unless you charge a
membership fee to keep down the noise level.
It is simple and practical to have kind of invitation-only membership
suggested by the MOU. Membership should be limited to organizations
with a bona fide interest in the Internet.
If ISOC has member organizations, then they should be encouraged to
sign on the basis that I have already proposed: one signature, one
vote. The member organizations would be allowed to appoint a
common representative.
This is simple and clean. You might find it advisable to farm out
the job of certifying new members to someone with local knowledge.
ISOC's national chapters, RIPE or the other NICs, EuroISPA, the CIX,
etc. You would need some way to prevent abuse of the system.
The POC and PAB already follow a Senate and House model, of course.
The problem with the existing structure is that it doesn't allow or
encourage enough people to participate. Not to be contentious ;-)
but it appears to be structured to prevent the rabble (the PAB)
from taking over. It needs to be restructured to give a true
consensus among the rabble real power. As it is, the POC can if
it chooses accept or disregard advice from the POC.
Why not do it like this:
* replace the gTLD MOU with a simple statement of principles
* limit membership to organizations willing to sign the
gTLD MOU and (preferably) pay a small membership fee
* use the membership fee to, among other things, pay for
the vetting of applications
* one member = one vote = one signature
* run a number of email lists intended to capture discussions
in certain subject areas, with any member able to have
access to any list, and possibly certain lists also open
to outsiders, subject to reasonable controls
* create a system for moving proposals along through stages,
the final stage being the appearance of the finished
proposal on a Web site
* let people vote by email, using much the same technology
as specified for the shared registry, or through a Web
form, using SSL
* reserve certain subject areas to the POC, but perhaps
require that items first be voted through the PAB
* fill most or all positions in the POC by elections in the PAB
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:23 PST