Re: POC Observer nominations

Kent Crispin (kent@songbird.com)
Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:21:00 -0800

On Mon, Dec 08, 1997 at 06:00:01PM +0200, Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
> Hi PAB,
>
> I would like making a couple of (last minute?) nominations for POC Observers
> (to metamorphose in members, I suppose).
>
> My nominees are Kent Crispin and Dan Busarow. You should all know them by now.
>
> They are both already nominated for a PAB office (respectively Chair and
> Deptuty-Chair). Our rules do not prevent PAB "regular" officers to double as
> POC Observers.
>
> I believe that under the current situation and given POC and PAB top
> priorities for the coming months they are suitable candidates. POC reform,
> which is related corrollairies of gTLD-MoU amendment and PAB Charter reform
> (if we get one before...) is one of the top priorities. Having Chair and/or
> Deputy Chair seating in POC is a "must" (at least in this transition al
> period; when the time will come to implement the reform the situation may be
> completely different).
>
> The second task "this process" will be in charge of will be the SRS
> implementation, evaluation and oversight. Here POC will need the skills of
> people that had always believd in shared registries, that fully understand how
> this work and that had always advanced technical (and policy) solutions. This
> is also a matter for PAB to advise on. And both Kent and Dan meet the profile.
>
> Indeed they are free to accept running for both offices or run for only one.
> And PABers will be free to consider whether they want this cumulation of
> offices, or to choose who is most suitable for each job. But I encourage both
> to accept and PABers to seriously consider them as PAB Observers as well.
>
> Amadeu

I have been at the IETF in Washington DC, and have had difficulty
keeping up with my mail. Unfortunately, I haven't had a great deal of
time to think through this nomination, and I have decidedly mixed
feelings about it. In the ideal, I believe that the POC observers and
the PAB officers should be distinct, but that the PAB officers should
have greater access to POC processes than they currently do -- this
would address the issue of the frustrations Antony has expressed with lack
of communication between the PAB officers and POC, but would leave the
role of POC observer essentially the same. I think there will be need
for both, because I believe the workload will merit it. (I think, for
example, that POC observers should make formal periodic reports to PAB.)
This is a hybrid view that I haven't had time to formulate and express
-- I hope to get a chance to write something about it in the near
future.

On the other hand, I see some value in the near term for the officers
of PAB working closely with POC.

In summary, I accept the nomination, but with the following caveat:
The office of Chair is my first consideration, and if I were a POC
observer as well, my goal would be to work to establish the
relationship I tried to describe above.

Personally, I am very pleased with the slate we have so far -- every
candidate is good, and I will have a hard time making my own choices
-- everybody up for vote I like and respect. If you are willing to
vote for me, but for only one office, and you can't decide which, I
would prefer to be Chair. But regardless of the outcome, I will
continue to contribute to the best of my ability.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html