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=09
>> 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. =09
>> 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.=20
>>********************************************************************
>> DRAFT
>>
>> The rough consensus of the Policy Oversight Commitee (=93POC=94)=
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.
>>=09
>> I. Introduction
>>=09
>> From the inception of the International Ad Hoc Committee (=93IAHC=94) 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 (=93IANA=94) and the Internet Society (=93ISOC=94) 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 (=93IAB=94) - two appointments
>> Council of Registrars (=93CORE=94) - two appointments
>> International Trademark Association (=93INTA=94) - one appointment
>> World Intellectual Property Organization (=93WIPO=94) - one appointment
>> International Telecommunications Union (=93ITU=94) - 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 (=93gTLD-MoU=94) (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 (=93PAB=94). Pending the formal amendment, which requires
>>action by IANA and ISOC, PAB has appointed two observers to POC.
>>=20
>> 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.)=20
>>
>> 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=09
>> 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.=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>
>
Javier SOLA - <color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>jsola@aui.es
</color>Director - Asociacion de Usuarios de Internet
<<http://www.aui.es>
Observer - Policy Oversight Committee of the gTLD-MoU
<<http://www.gtld-mou.org>
Tel: 902-21.03.23 Fax: 91-344.14.25
Av. Alberto Alcocer, 46 Dup. 5=BA C - 28016 Madrid
Comte d'Urgell, 143 1=BA 1=AA - 08036 Barcelona