Do we need the relationship between PAB, POC and CORE to be the same as it
was before the USG turned the new TLD business around? Perhaps we should
no longer be "joined at the POC" so to speak. I think we would all have
more sucess if we lobbied as three seperate groups for something as opposed
to three branches of one (almost) registry.
Bob Helfant
At 02:44 PM 7/7/98 +0000, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>> From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
>> The question: is there an interest in PAB in forming a position on
>> the matter of the "new IANA"?
>
>Yes. The PAB should specify and review details for the IANA articles of
>incorporation and initial bylaws, and ensure that a "good parts version"
>of the MoU is in place.
>
>However, the PAB should not officially react to the GIAFWP[a-z]*, merely
>one of many "educational" forums that will take place in the next few
>months. Our focus should be on IANA and making things work, not on
>educating the populi.
>
>WSimpson@UMich.edu
> Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:33 PST