Antony and PAB, I fully agree. We need a formal proposal, but first we need it to take form. We have to understand which are the issues under discussion. This seems to me as a way of getting those issues out. Any question that I ask directs the answers, that is why I was reluctant to ask them in the first place, but I am very worried about not hearing any voices on this issue in PAB. That is why I have brought the questions out. I agree that we really have to work on it, bring out a formal proposal and vote. What I am afraid of is that all this will not take place before POC is forced to make a public RFC. POC has annouced in Brussels that it would, very quickly, come out with a RFC on this issue, after consulting PAB. It has to go on with the plan. Meanwhile, very few individual voices have been heard in PAB. None of them proposed any specific changes in the proposal. Please read the proposal and comment on it. Javier At 06:24 PM 4/12/97 -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote: >Javier, > >I think this is an extremely important issue, and that the PAB should be >allowed to vote on this according to its formal procedures. > >Unlike the question of one-letter SLDs, this question is of the greatest >importance. I urge you and the rest of the POC to take any answers to your >ballot below to be an informal answer only, and I urge the subsequent Chair >and Excom to take this matter up formally. > >I have already responded to POC at length on this subject, as an individual. > >Antony > > >At 10:19 PM 12/4/97 +0100, Javier SOLA wrote: >>PAB: >> >>The most important issue that we have on the table is the composition of >>POC. The actual proposal is to add nine members to POC, all of them elected >>by PAB, maintain the ones that are already there, except for ITU and WIPO >>who become non-voting. >> >>- POC will therefore have: >> 9 members elected by PAB >> 2 members elected by CORE >> 7 ex-officio voting members >> 2 ex-officio non-voting members >> >>I will try to ask very specific questions. If you think other questions >>should be added, please say so. >> >>Please answer, even if it is only to agree with the proposal. >> >>The proposal says about the new seats: >> >> Include in POC representatives of the following groups: >> >> 1. Operators and service providers - (3 representatives) >> 2. Business organizations other than operators and service providers (2 >>representatives) >> 3. Consumers (1 representative) >> 4. At large members distributed geographically: >> a. Americas - one >> b. Europe, Africa and the Middle East - one >> c. Asia-Pacific - one >> >>1) Do you think that this distribution includes all the major players ? >> >>2) Is it fair to the parties involved (constituencies) ? (excluding CORE >>and ex-officio, in this question) >> >>2b) Do you think that geographical distribution could be attained in some >>other way ? >> >>3) Would you propose any changes ? >> >>4) Do you think that constituency representatives should only be voted by >>PAB members that are part of that constituency or by all members of PAB ? >> >>The proposal says that the following shall continue to be members of POC: >> >> 1. Two persons appointed by ISOC >> 2. Two persons appointed by IANA >> 3. Two persons appointed by IAB >> 4. Two persons appointed by CORE >> 5. One person appointed by INTA >> 6. One person appointed by WIPO (with non-voting status) >> 7. One person appointed by ITU (with non-voting status) >> >>5) Do you agree with this ? Do you want to add a counter proposal ? >> >>6) Do you think that the overall composition of POC as a whole represents >>all the interests in the Internet in a fair way (if such a thing exists) ? >> >>Javier >> >>--------------------------------------------------- >> >>The proposal: >> >>_____________________________ >> >>At the meeting of POC held in Brussels on 24 and 25 November, we >>addressed the single most serious issue remaining to be decided by POC, >>namely how to fulfill our publicly stated commitment to propose a plan >>for expansion of the POC. >> Two days of meetings produced what I believe is a rough consensus. I >>recognize that the emphasis is on "rough". There were strongly held >>views on some subjects that may be outside the consensus set forth >>below. This draft is being posted to both POC and PAB for discussion and >>comment before it is released to the public for further discussion and >>comment. THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE PUBLIC UNTIL POC AND PAB HAVE >>HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT. >>******************************************************************** >> DRAFT >> >> The rough consensus of the Policy Oversight Commitee (“POC”) regarding >>expansion of the POC to represent more clearly the entire spectrum of > >>interests of the stakeholders of the Internet community is described in >>this document. As a part of the consensus, the POC has decided to >>solicit public comment on the expansion proposal. >> >> I. Introduction >> >> From the inception of the International Ad Hoc Committee (“IAHC”) in >>September, 1997, the IAHC and its successors, the interim POC, and now >>the POC have explicitly and publicly recognized the need for >>evolutionary growth and development of the entire program for expansion >>of the generic top level domain name system, including the composition >>of the POC. The IAHC was formed and chartered by the Internet Assigned >>Numbers Authority (“IANA”) and the Internet Society (“ISOC”) to develop >>this expansion program. The original eleven members of the IAHC were >>chosen to represent as broad as possible a range of interests in the >>Internet community, as to be geographically distributed. The selection >>of members succeeded in bringing together a diversity of views and a >>geographically well distributed group, but the limitation to eleven >>members, and the selection process, directed initially by IANA and ISOC, >>has been criticized as not giving explicit recognition to some interest >>groups. >> >> The gTLD-MoU now provides that the POC consists of twelve members >>appointed as follows: >> IANA - two appointments >> ISOC - two appointments >> Internet Architecture Board (“IAB”) - two appointments >> Council of Registrars (“CORE”) - two appointments >> International Trademark Association (“INTA”) - one appointment >> World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) - one appointment >> International Telecommunications Union (“ITU”) - one appointment >> Representative of the Depository of the Memorandum of Understanding on >>the Generic Top Level Domain Name Space of the Internet Domain >>Name System (“gTLD-MoU”) (the ITU) - one appointment >> >> The POC has agreed to an amendment to the gTLD-MoU to provide for the >>appointment of two additional members to be appointed by the Policy >>Advisory Body (“PAB”). Pending the formal amendment, which requires >>action by IANA and ISOC, PAB has appointed two observers to POC. >> >> Terms of the above appointments are for three years, except that the >>organizations appointing two members initially appoint one for a one >>year term, and the other for a three year term. The gTLD-MoU directs >>each appointing group to endeavour to achieve equitable geographic >>distribution. >> >> (Further explanation of the identity and composition of the appointing >>bodies referred to above may be found at the POC web site: >>http://www.gtld-mou.org.) >> >> II. The Consensus >> >> In fulfillment of the promise of an evolutionary process, the POC has >>reached consensus on an expansion of POC to be achieved over a period of >>eighteen months, with an appropriate transitional structure to ensure >>stability in the administration of the gTLD-MoU program. >> >> Effective upon formal adoption by POC of this expansion program, and >>for a period of eighteen months thereafter, the gTLD-MoU will be amended >>to provide that POC shall have twenty members as follows: >> > >> The PAB will have the power to elect nine members of POC. Nominations >>may be made by any member of PAB; each PAB member may nominate not more >>than one nominee; nominees need not necessarily be connected or >>affiliated with the nominating organization. Each nomination shall >>include a designation of the nominee as falling within one of the >>following classifications: >> 1. Operators and service providers - three >> 2. Business organizations other than operators and service providers - >>two >> 3. Consumers - one >> 4. At large members distributed geographically: >> a. Americas - one >> b. Europe, Africa and the Middle East - one >> c. Asia-Pacific - one >>Nominations by PAB shall be completed within one month following >>adoption of this expansion program by POC, and elections of members >>shall be conducted not later than three months following adoption. Each >>PAB member must select one and only one of the first three >>classifications in which it will cast one vote, and must select one and >>only one of the three geographic areas in which it may cast one >>additional vote. The nominees receiving the highest number of votes in >>each category will be elected. >> >> The following shall continue to be members of POC: >> 1. Two persons appointed by ISOC >> 2. Two persons appointed by IANA >> 3. Two persons appointed by IAB >> 4. Two persons appointed by CORE >> 5. One person appointed by INTA >> 6. One person appointed by WIPO (with non-voting status) >> 7. One person appointed by ITU (with non-voting status) >> >> Prior to the expiration of the eighteen month transition period, the >>POC shall determine, by vote of not less than two-thirds of the voting >>members of POC, the composition of the POC thereafter in whatever form >>the POC may determine. >> The gTLD-MoU shall further be amended to provide that, effective at the >>expiration of the eighteen month transition period, the gTLD-MoU may >>thereafter be amended by vote of at least two-thirds of the voting >>members of POC. >> > > Javier SOLA - 0000,0000,ffffjsola@aui.es Director - Asociacion de Usuarios de Internet < Observer - Policy Oversight Committee of the gTLD-MoU < Tel: 902-21.03.23 Fax: 91-344.14.25 Av. Alberto Alcocer, 46 Dup. 5º C - 28016 Madrid Comte d'Urgell, 143 1º 1ª - 08036 Barcelona