Re: PAB IMPORTANT: Straw Poll POC Composition

Javier SOLA (jsola@aui.es)
Fri, 05 Dec 1997 20:29:15 +0100


Antony,

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