> On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Dave Crocker / IMC wrote:
> =
> > 2. Those named by IANA do not "represent" IANA. They are given no
> > direction from IANA and to not consult with IANA for approval of the
> > participant's positions within the POC. In fact, communication betwe=
en
> > those named by IANA and IANA are pretty minimal.
> =
> mr.crocker what is the "philosophy" behind this system ?
> i mean what is the "background" and right understanding for such
> arangements or what is the "benefit" of it
Dear Sascha,
The idea was that IANA, ISOV and somehow IAB were appointing POCers that =
in
fact represnted the "Interent community".
Under the various new proposals this task is asumed, partially or complet=
ely,
byt the POCers appointed by PAB.
> =
> =
> > Hence I think that Rick's beliefs and opinions in this are similar to=
those
> > held by many others but, in fact, they do not apply to the current to=
pic.
> =
> so what is the diference between a nonvoting member and a (two) voting
> members
ITU and WIPO should be non-voting as both are intergovernmental UN-charte=
red
agencies. Giving them a vote has long worried both the Internet community=
,
that braodly supports the Net's self-governemnt (Iin fact I stated severa=
l
times that *I* had serious reservations about these organiztions being vo=
ting
members) and even its member States, that somehow resent that having thes=
e
voting seats amount to "them* (the member states) voting on POC, and most=
of
them prefer to stay aside.
They should therefore retain the voice, because they have a role, but wit=
hout
a vote.
There was also the proposal to reduce all naming organizatons to non-voti=
ng
setas. The "Community" is to vote, so PAB-elected appointees should all b=
e
voting members. There is also a broad consensus in POC that CORE should a=
lso
appoint voting members. Then there is a part of us (including me) that wo=
uld
prefer clearly separating the two souls of POC membership: The community =
reps
are elected (by PAB) and vote; the nanming organiztions, which have a con=
crete
and important role to play in this process appoint (not elect) reps (I fa=
vor
one per org) that have voice but not vote.
Two notes on that: First, I only remember one formal vote within POC. So =
the
difference is not that dramatic so far. Second, all this is explained for=
the
sake of rationally organising POC membership (community reps devided into=
specific consituencies; organisantions that have a special role to claim.=
Ecah
one with a clear and differentiated st of rules as to nomination, number =
of
reps, election and vting rules). Ok. very rational. But perhaps (and i sa=
y
perhaps) a little bit radiacal an experiment. And experiments sometimes w=
ork,
and sometimes don't. For this reason is not a bad idea trying to work out=
a
"compromise": during at least a transitional period, the organisations th=
at
had been behind this process form the vbery beginning and that have a cle=
ar
role to play should keep double seats and voting rights. If this work, we=
could discuss furhter reform later....
(please notice that I awfully mix my own thought s with POC's views and/o=
r
dicsussions. I don't try to be coherent, buy to excplain the issues at st=
ake
and the solutions put forward) =
> =
> why isp's should have 2 voting members and iana should have one voting
> member?
Because it is not "IANA" (ie, Jon Postel) but "two community rpresentativ=
es
appointed by IANA (Perry and Dave, then Glenn and Willie). If we provide =
for
an alternative way to represnt the net community interests /and precisely=
this
is the core of the reform) we need rethinking IANA's role.
> =
> if iana hase a way to ashure the "right" direction in benefit for all
> i have no problem with having iana have one/two voting/nonvoting seet/s=
> on poc
IANA still has to sign gTLD-MoU amendments. And, well, IANA can always de=
cide
that our T=D1LDs are not anymore part of the root... (even if this is ver=
y unlikely)
> =
> for me iana represents the "good old man" making shure that everything
> runs properly in the right direction
You got it. So it has to be represented in an appropriate way. But the Ne=
t has
evolved and besides the usual "good all men" we face the need to bring ab=
oard
a mider and heterogeneous new keds on the block,- well, not so new by the=
way ;-)
> =
> now samthing "new" should come so we need a little more explanation on=
> this "new" thing
> =
> would you like to give as more explanation of it
Well, I'm not dave but I tried. He will certainly come to the rescue, btw=
=2E
Amadeu