On Wed, Nov 11, 1998 at 11:02:14PM -0800, Rick H. Wesson wrote:
>
> to be a member of the PAB, or to have signed the gTLD-MoU,
> now that ICANN seems forming?
I appologize for not responding sooner -- I have been very busy
preparing for the DNSO meeting. Let me explain in some detail.
It's a very interesting question. It appears likely that the DNSO
will take the role that POC/PAB ws to take. Remember that the goal
was to get more signatories of the MoU, and to restructure PAB/POC so
that PAB elected many of the members of POC? That leaves us with a
couple of very salient facts:
1) PAB and POC were going to be restructured anyway, and
2) The DNSO will be such that every single member of PAB -- that is,
every single signatory of the gTLD-MoU -- will be able to become
members of the DNSO.
The likely differences between being a member of PAB and a member of
the DNSO are that it will cost a yearly fee to be a member of the
DNSO (there will certainly be a membership class where that fee will
be low: <$US100), and instead of signing the MoU you may sign
something else -- perhaps something very like the "MoU Lite", or
statement of principles.
That is, THERE ISN'T MUCH DIFFERENCE AT ALL. If our plans had
worked out exactly as anticipated, we would have seen a number of
MoU opponents join PAB, and there would have been a lively time.
Now a number of MoU opponents will join the DNSO, and there will be
a lively time.
That presumes, of course, that all PAB members join the DNSO as well.
Therefore, I strongly encourage all PAB members to get involved in
the DNSO.
>From a high level this is a "different names, same faces" kind of
situation -- we have been forced by the USG to take an expensive
scenic detour through the realms of international politics, but the
fundamental dynamics haven't changed much at all. "ICANN" will take
the place of "IANA", "DNSO" will take the place of "POC/PAB", but the
basic relationships, and the primary players, will remain.
The fact is that PAB/POC has always been an open organization, that
anyone can join; and the DNSO will be an open organization, that
anyone can join. In the past the Minions of Evil have stood around
and said "We refuse to join, therefore you are closed!", and they
will undoubtedly try the same trick with the DNSO. In fact, they
already *are* trying this trick.
But the trick won't work much longer, and at some point they will
have to join, or remain outside in the cold. At that point they will
have to face the reality that those who support the fundamental
principles behind the MoU are in fact the large majority.
So, to summarize, I think the way to view this is as simply a Big
Renaming and Restructuring of PAB/POC that we would have to go
through anyway -- we just took a rather twisted path to get somewhere
we would get to anyway: a firm ground for IANA, and a truly
representative oversight body for gTLDs.
The action items, then, are that we should all participate in the
formation of the DNSO; and when it is formed, we should troop on down
to the membership line, and join up. Then we can get down to the job
that we all believe in: being a fair, representative body that deals
with policy issues for TLDs. In immediate practical terms, that
means joining the discuss@dnso.org mailing list (see the www.dnso.org
web page for subscription details), and participating.
> Whats does it mean to be a member of CORE?
IMO CORE's situation changes very little. There are some very large
members of CORE, with deep pockets. Some of the smaller registrars
may drop out, but there is a core of CORE (sorry) that is here for
the long term. They have done good work with the SRS; there is, as
you know, an IETF proto-working group to standardize the protocol;
the CORE registry is still the most completely thought out and
developed shared registry. It is frustrating as hell for them, but
they are not going away.
The relationship between CORE and POC/PAB will in some way be
transmuted into a relationship between CORE and the DNSO, but there
is no particular reason to fret over it at this time -- that is a
detail that doesn't need to be addressed until the DNSO details are
firmed up.
Finally, let me close this message with an apology to the PAB
membership: I have not done a good job of keeping people informed.
In my defense, I have been working very hard on all these issues. In
particular, my number one concern at the moment is that the DNSO be
organized in such a fashion that the PAB membership will have a
natural home there. Please participate.
kent
-- 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 - 03:22:37 PST