On Fri, Feb 06, 1998 at 06:17:03PM +0930, K S LIM wrote:
[...]
>
> IMHO, the USG had ignored the rest of the Govts on earth in regards to
> this GP, why can't it ignore the Internet community?
This is one of my greatest worries, actually. Even more -- the
political foundations of the GP itself are not all that strong.
The American political process is such that even if it were modified
to support the MoU, Congress is under no obligation to honor it. In
other words, the GP doesn't bind the USG to anything, one way or
another.
> I say we should
> adress the GP but should also devise alternative plans.
My belief also.
[...]
> >
> > If I get the time, I will run a check on the PAB archives to see how many
> > participate. My guess is 6 to 12 people.
>
> My guess is that it is probably a larger number than what you guessed
> here. However, I do agree that it is a small number compared to the
> membership of PAB which is precisely my point here, we need more rep. to
> have better participation. We also like the PAB members to have
> commitments. If they can't even appoint a rep. and need to delegate to
> other organization then the level of commitment may be low.
Participation has varied over time. There were 48 votes in the last
election -- about a 25% participation rate.
There already is a body in the MoU with < 25 participants -- that's
the POC. There is really no point to the PAB unless there are
substantially more participants than that.
The POC has floated the idea that the size of the POC should be
increased, and that PAB should elect half of the POC. Unless the PAB
has a great many more actual participants that election would be
pretty distorted.
[...]
> > Uhm, from close up Kent doesn't look brand new. 50-ish, I think. ;-)
>
> If you are referring to his age, then I may say he may look 50-ish but
> may have a heart of 20 something:):). However, what i meant here was
> that he was not from the "old guard" or the "old power structure" if
> there ever was one.
> Best regards.
My involvement in the Internet per se is fairly recent -- about 5
years or so. I've been involved in the DNS controversy for maybe 2
years. It only SEEMS like forever....
-- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:23 PST