With all respect, the last thing that I want to do is to interfere for in a=
call for consensus, whoever informal, but I think that this one does not=
reflect the proposal that has been presented. It represents your own points=
of view in some places, and, as you are the Chairman and you are putting=
forward a POC proposal, I think that it is unacceptable.
Please send another questionaire that sticks to the terms of the proposal.
Getting into details:
I find your first two questions extremelly biased and out of context.=20
>1. Should the PAB and POC become one organization, with the POC as the=
Executive Committee of PAB?
>[ ] Yes [ ] No
>Comments:
The POC proposal does not at all imply this.
It says that a number of POC members may be elected by PAB (as the chosen=
constituency), not that those elected should run PAB. This would be one=
more right/duty of PAB. PAB electing POC members does not release PAB from=
being an advisory body with its own separate officials.
>2. If the PAB and POC are separate bodies, should the PAB reps on POC have=
a duty to report to PAB on POC proceedings, formal or informal, unless=
specifically requested not to do so by POC?
>[ ] Yes [ ] No
>Comments:
You are not helping the procedure at all by bringing here the subject to=
your own private opinions and discussion. Please stick to the proposal=
and/or alternatives. This subject will be discussed when the Charter is=
brought up.
>4. If the POC is expanded, should the PAB elect 9 of its 18 voting members?
>[ ] Yes [ ] No
>Comments:
Nothing that may be answered here has any meaning. By NO somebody may mean=
*too many*, somebody may mean *not enough*
>
>5. If the PAB does elect POC members, should they be divided as follows?
>Should they be divided up at all? =20
This question does not make sense here. The reason to increase POC is to=
have more groups represented, not to have more people.
> Consider if you think these are the
>groups that should have representation reserved to them, or if the
>definitions are too rigid, or too vague. Consider if you think that they
>might have too much or too little voting strength. Consider if you think
>that geographical distribution is a good thing.
That is only the first question. The next question would be to propose other=
ways of getting geographical distribution without having specific seats.
>
>6. Should the POC continue to have the following members appointed to it
>by the following organizations?
> b. Two persons appointed by IANA
> [ ] Too many [ ] Too few=20
> Comments: =20
What if somebody thinks that the number is just right ? There is an option=
missing.
>Thank you. Please note again that these are the questions *I* think should
>be answered by the PAB. If you have additional comments, or think that
>these questions are wrong-headed or miss the point, please say that too.
>The point is to say what you think.
Again, with all respect, your job as Chairman is not to ask the questions=
that *you* think PAB should answer, but to try to reflect the proposal that=
has been presented to PAB and offer choices.
If you include your own opinions in the questions, then the answers are=
useless to anybody.
Please send another questionaire.
Javier
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