in general the Internet has had participants who are individuals, rather
than people who 'represent' a particular group. The original scheme for
selecting IAHC participants from the Internet set of groups (ISOC, IANA,
IAB) tended to continue that tradition.
>i mean what is the "background" and right understanding for such
>arangements or what is the "benefit" of it
The benefit is that people generally do no spend time wondering about
people's motivations but, rather, pay attention to the content. A good
idea from the devil is still a good idea. A bad idea from God still has a
problem...
>> 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 topic.
>
>so what is the diference between a nonvoting member and a (two) voting
>members
On the current POC only the PAB observers are non-voting and that's an
artifact of still needing to change the gTLD MoU. The theory which prompts
the new proposals to distinguish between voting and non-voting is that many
people who are critical of the participation by one or another group
believes they should not vote. In truth, the committee works primary by
discussion and consensus and there is little voting, but the formal right
to vote is publicly felt to be important.
>why isp's should have 2 voting members and iana should have one voting
>member?
I know that the proposal Shearing submitted had that distinction and don't
remember the one Maher posted also did. The specific numbers were chosen
very subjectively, so that the explanation you are seeking won't have
compelling logic behind it. The gist of the thinking is:
1. We want the committee to be small enough to be useful, so some choices
have to be made with an eye towads keeping it small.
2. "Representation" of a public consituency like ISPs or "end users" is a
fuzzy and difficult task and therefore having some redundancy (i.e., 2
representatives) should help the job get done better.
3. "Liaisons" for the groups that are related to the direct gTLD structure
and operations have a simpler job, somewhat at the level of reporting
things back and forth and therefore don't need two people to do it.
>for me iana represents the "good old man" making shure that everything
>runs properly in the right direction
well, I certainly concur, but remember that IANA retains the responsibility
for approving (or disapproving) changes to the gTLD MoU.
>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
I don't understand what you are asking for. Please clarify.
d/
--------------------
Dave Crocker dcrocker@imc.org
Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253
675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org