Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>
> Perry,
>
> I have to disagree. I think Jim is full of himself, argumentative,
> pendantic and pushy
Dear Antony
I agree with you here, I may get flamed together with you but I guess we
just can't help it.
(I will get flamed, he can't help it), but he's
> basically right.
However, I do not agree with you here(that Jim is right). I do agree
that PAB needs more members and new blood but I don't agree that we
should agree to let one person represent 500 members. At the end of
day, we don't get much new blood this way.
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.
This is indeed very subjective but I would dare say any claim that the
MOU is dead in the water is a bit premature.
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.
May be not only these 2 groups. The PAB and the Internet community
should have some thing to say.
>
> 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.
I don't think that the POC had done so badly that we need to fire them
now(unless I misunderstood you, are you referring to POC when you used
the word "coach"?)
>
> 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.
I agree but I don't see any obstacle for any one to join the PAB as it
is right now. However, I do not agree to a person representing 500
members, (or for this matter, even 3 or 4 members). I think this defeat
the purpose of PAB membership.
>
> 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.
I agree that Jim can join, should join and contributes. But I do not
agree to him representing more than one members.
>
> 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.
I don't think so, the charter drafted by Kent looks good and it even
specifically specifies that no PAB members is to be censored on the
list. Any organization can become PAB member now if it has signed the
MOU.
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.
I believe as it is now, the PAB is very open, I remembered reading a
comment that being less open may be able to attract more members but I
do not agree with it.
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
> >
--
KS LIM
LOGIC GROUP OF COMPANIES
545 ORCHARD ROAD, #08-04/05
SINGAPORE 238882
TEL:65-7330553,FAX:65-7333068
E-MAIL: ks_lim@logchina.com.sg
kslim@singnet.com.sg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:23 PST