?????...errrr....could you repeat the question, please?
In one sense, PAB, POC and even CORE are (different bodies of) one
organization: the gTLD-MoU *thing-without-a-name*
OTOH, saying that by electing half the voting members means "becoming one
organization" is misleading. It is like saying that the citizens of the State
of New York are the Governor...because they elect her/him. One thing is the
organization, anther one the electoral constituency.
And this is perecisely the point. Your questions focused in the internal
relations between PAB and CORE. This is indeed an important issue. But the
goal of the proposed reform (the goal of doing a reform a t all) was not
changing the relation within these two "internal" bodies, but increasing the
legitimacy of this process by enlarging the represnativity of POC, including
new interests/groups/stakeholders/constituencies aboard.
There are two ways fro increasing this process' legitimacy: making wider more
people feel "represented" and increasing the number of gTLD-MoU signatories
and PAB members.
ISPs, advertisers, infraestructure provieders; content providers, domain name
holders, end users... a lot of intersts groups have claimed that they "must"
have representation in POC.
The fact that under the current composition WIPO, ITU, CORE or INTA represent
"specialized interests" while IANA, ISOC and to a lesser extent IAB are
supposed to represent "the Internet community" interests. Indeed all these
organizations as seen as "hte same thing" or at least the same "ol'boys club"
from "outside".
How to deal with that question? Imagine that we agree that end users should be
represented in POC. Or ISPs. Who would name such a rep? Should POC just apoint
one ISP or end user (or one ISP association or end-user association)? This
coopting would only make happy the coopted organization, and would add very
little to solve the problem. Why EuroISPA and not CIX? Or APIA? Is MCI a ISP,
or a telco? and Deutsche Telekom?.....
The same can be said about "Internet community" at large. Who does represent
this?
Identifying the interests is the simplest part of that. Finding the best way
of selecting each rep is the real nightmare.
Unlsss....
Unless you find a consistent electoral constituency. Nobody knwos how to
define the Internet community, but this process is not about governing the
Net, BUT ONLY about creating and managing a subset of the DNS (gTLDs, and even
part of it). So the electoral constituency should be....those that show an
interest in this issues, and want to support it: PAB.
PAB is already the source of legitimacy for this process. It is (I believe,
and I'm not the only one) quite logical to turn to our "self-defined Internet
community" when it comes to elect POC members through and open,
community-based process instead than through appointed naming organizations.
Bear in mind that under this scheme PAB elects some POC members, but it does
not mean that POC members have to be necessarily members of PAB. Anyone can
make nominations before PAB and get elected, even if they are not PABers.
So if there are some "interests" that deserve specific represntation in POC,
nominations should be made for representing such interests. And PAB should
elect them, the same way you elect mayors, congressmen and, in some places judges.
The part that is less satisfactory is, indeed, the identification and
categorixation or the interests to be represented. But it is imortant that we
make this distinction: the reform is not (only) to bring more PAB elected
seats on POC but rahter to use PAB as the electoral constituency te select,
elect and appoint POC members representing/willing to defend a wider range of interests/groups....
Indeed in doing so PAB gets a much more strong role that probably would
convince many organizations to sign the MoU and join PAB. Most people are
outside not becuase they are agaisnt the rpocess, but because they don't see
any advantage in signing for.
This could be still increased with my proposal to grant PAB a veto power on
gTLD-MoU amendments. This is perfectly coherent to the proposed new structure.
Soem POCers even suggest that PAB should approve and sign the amendments, een
if i don't favor this approach.
>
> 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:
Does it any difference whether "PAB and POC are separate bodies" or not?
Reporting tothe electing consituency relates to the mandate received from
electo. Ability to do so may also depend on the rules of the body were one is
serving. NOT to the relationships between both bodies.
>
> 3. Should the POC be expanded to bring in other constituencies
> [ ] Yes [ ] No
> Comments:
See above under question 1. Nowe the question is : which interests should be
represetned? There are two main views for approaching that issue.
On one side, we could try to set up a detailed list:
* Telcos
* ISPs
* IAPs
* Internet technology
* adverttising
* content providers
* Internet law/intellectual property law
* end-users
* ??????
The problem with this apporach is that we will never agree with a list. And
that any list will be really long. Besides that, lots of companies will have
interests in various if not all these fields (but this problem can be more
easily solved than the actual drafting of the complete list).
A second approach is the "vague groups". For instance dividing representation
in three abstract groups representing (excuse the way of wording it):
* Those "building (and selling) the Internet (infraestructure; software; access....)
* Those "doing business with and in the Net" (web desginers; content
providers; service developement consultants; registrars; .....)
* Those "using the Net" as a tool (personal or commercial).
OK, it is also difficult to fit each one in a category. For this reason nearly
all proposals contain also some PAB "at large" POC members.....
The idea is *not* having 9 IP attorneys or 9 *telco* reps appointed by PAB. I
repat the the leading idea behind the reform is bringing more consituencies
aboard, expanding POC representativeness. Not only having more peopel seatin
in POC. We need a more representative POC, but we also need a "good POC"
meaning that we have a workable balance of skills within it.
> 4. If the POC is expanded, should the PAB elect 9 of its 18 voting members?
> [ ] Yes [ ] No
> Comments:
9 out of 18? It is not a question of numbers, but of roles and goals.
As to what i said before, *my* opinion is that most of the voting members
should be elected by PAB. This is the rule the naming organiztions being
case-by-cae exceptions.
>
> 5. If the PAB does elect POC members, should they be divided as follows?
> Should they be divided up at all?
Most of the proposals and disussions included dividing PAB into Charters. Each
member was required to adhere to one when joining, or just choosing one for
voting matters.
My view is that PAB should not be devided, or not unless PAB wants to do so.
But the proposal Another thing is that *for the specific
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.
I have already skethce dthe logics behind that. And expressed that I don't
feel confortable enoguth with the current proposal.
[...]
>
> d. At large members distributed geographically:
> i. Americas - 1
> ii. Europe, Africa and the Middle East - 1
> iii. Asia-Pacific - 1
As I think that it is impossible to come up with *perfect* divisons of POC
reps among interested/legitimated stakeholders, I strongly support having at
least two "at large " appointees. 3 is not a bad number.
As for geographic distribution, I alsways pressed for it, but I'm convinced
that the electorate is intelligent and mature enough not to elect all reps
form one inudstry, one view, one country. See what happended to POC. Or CORE.
But I am not confortable with fixed sets for geographic slots. And espeically
with this slots.
If we want to make sure that we have geographic diversity, a couple of seats
reserved to non G7,or still better, non-OECD countries will be far more usueful.
>
> 6. Should the POC continue to have the following members appointed to it
> by the following organizations?
Her we come to the naming organisations. The logidc against their right to
appoint any POCer is that there are self-appointed orgs. Adding new ones is
just an excercise on coopting. Let's PAB (our self-defined Internet community)
to elect the Oversight Body...
But....
But the folowing orgs do have each of them a specific role in this process.
CORE is the "object" upon which the oversight is exerced, and POC needs indeed
to have input and views from them. IANA is the authority for DNS matters, and
this process is about DNS, not Net governance in general. ISOC brings in both
the liaison fucntion with the technical community and users concerns. ITUis
the depository of the gTLD-MoU. WIPO is the body administering the ACPs.
IAB and INTA roles are less clear in this view (but here I disagree with most
POCers, that have no hesitation in having them among the naming orgs.): Their
being is perhaps less justified as naming organizations as such (why these
and not others?). But Technical/operational and trademark concerns are
*cnetral* to this process. They guranatee that this concerns are represented
by knwoledgable people elected and backed by widely representative and
respected organizations. The worry is that even if we allocate two seats for
"technical interests" (or any else) companies would tend to nominate (and PAB
would tend to elect) their "business fornt" people (managers; general counsel;
PR) instead of their enigneers or TM counsels. And,as I said before, we need a
"good POC" as
much as a "widel y representative POC". (ie, a POC with the right skill in it,
not only with the right consituencies represented in it).
This logic is also behind the proposal of having two seats for each org.
Personally, I favor (and I'm not the only one within POC) having only one per
org, and all of them non-voting. My exception would be CORE, which should keep
two voting seats.
You asked whether someone wanted ato inlude a different set of questions.
Probably you did not intend me to answer that, but here there go my preferred
set of questions
Does PAB believe that POC needs to reform ist composition?
If yes, do you believe that POC needs to include representative of other
interests/groups/constiuencies/stakeholders than those currently represented?
If yes, which groups/interests..../... do you believe that should be
represented within POC?
Is there any established organization represntng the interests/groups../.. you
have selected? Which ones?
Do you accept and understand the role of the current naming organiztions
(ISOC, IABA, ITU...)? (or better: do you believee that the current naming
aorganizations should keep that role after the reform?
Do you believe that PAB is the rgiht constituency for electing POC members?
Do you agree with the mixed approcach (half PAB/half naming organizations)
that POC proposals puts forward? (do you want more PAB; less PAB more Naming
orgs; less naming Orgs...)
Do you agree with how the POC proposal devides PAB-elected POC apoointess'
representation?
If not, would you prefer a more detailed one (telcos; ISPs; end-users;
advertising interests; IP law; ....) or a more vague one?
Do you agree with having "at large" PAB appointees?
Do you agree with such appointees being elected by geographical slots?
...and so forth.
OK. That's all for now.
Amadeu