Re: Fwd: Re: Who is who in PAB? (and who votes on bahalf of who?)

Kent Crispin (kent@songbird.com)
Thu, 18 Dec 1997 23:51:44 -0800


On Fri, Dec 19, 1997 at 04:29:43AM +0100, Sascha Ignjatovic wrote:
[...]
>
> mr.crispin thank you for your role in leading us toward a
> "strong pab" understanding
>
> if you manage to establish a "leading" role of pab without
> brocke "the thing in peaces" it should be fine
> -i can imagine that the poc also thinks like
> "we are the leaders" and core may think "we are the leaders"
>
> if pab becomms the thing wich unite all of us than i see a
> "strong pab" you sugest posible
>
> if pab is dividing between us than i see people rebeling
> against pab

I may have miscommunicated -- it is so easy to do. I'm not really
thinking in terms of "leaders" and "followers".

Consider the IETF, the IESG, the IAB, and the ISOC. Four entities,
heavily intertwined. I don't think of any of them as being "leaders"
or "followers" -- they are just functional roles in a larger whole.

With PAB/POC/CORE the roles are different, and there are important
differences from the IETF model. But I still view it as just roles
in a larger whole.

One very important difference is that the IETF has the luxury of
dissociating itself from any commercial entanglements -- it is a
standards body, primarily, and has made the principled stand that it
is inappropriate for a standards body to create standards that favor
particular commercial interests.

However, PAB/POC/CORE is intimately tied to commercial endeavors, so
it cannot take the IETF's easy out -- PAB/POC/CORE *must* deal with
the tension between serving the public interest and at the same time
fostering a commercial enterprise. This puts us in *much* more
treacherous ethical waters.

In any case, when I spoke of PAB assuming more of a leadership role I
was thinking in the following context:

At first there was only the IAHC. I don't know, but it is rumored
that IAHC went through a period of self-organization -- a relatively
short period, but, OTOH, there weren't that many of them. They did a
huge amount of work, the MoU was signed, and PAB blinked into
existence. PAB has a very vague charter, and essentially no guidance
as to how it should be organized. It has been organizing itself,
slowly, over the past few months.

CORE came into existence somewhat after PAB, but CORE has a very
large, immediate, and pressing problem facing them -- there is
nothing like staring at a gun to focus your thoughts. They have
organized very quickly, at least in terms of the central problem
facing them (getting a running registry in place).

In the meantime the IAHC has metamorphosed through the iPOC to the
POC, and is almost certain to undergo another major change in the near
future.

Meanwhile, PAB is still organizing itself.

In truth, I think it is fair to say that in comparison to the other
two entities, PAB hasn't done much. That's because getting PAB to do
things has been like trying to herd cats, or to nail jello to the
wall (to reuse two well worn lines). PAB hasn't been very cohesive...

To be fair, there hasn't been much for PAB to do.

But this is about to change drastically. With the change in POC's
composition comes a change in the responsibilities of PAB, and meeting
those responsibilities represents a major and significant challenge.

Another change that I see is opening PAB more to the public: I see the
primary function of PAB in this enterprise as the conduit between the
public and policy. At present it is POC members who are dealing with
the political insider reality that some very important milestones
depend on; at some point those milestones will be passed, and then
public input (instead of political maneuvering) will be the preferred
way for forming policy (at least I sincerly hope so). At that time
PAB should become the focus for new policy initiatives. Those
initiatives will ultimately be instantiated through POC, if at all.
But, if the "public" is ever to have any real voice in management of
the gTLDs, that voice will be transmitted through PAB

I don't say that out of "PAB-ambition". It just seems to me the
natural outcome of the structure as proposed. It doesn't mean that
PAB is "in charge". Instead it means that PABs role is to collect
input from the public, mold that into policy proposals, and to give
those proposals to POC to act upon as it sees fit. In that sense,
PAB would assume a leadership role. It's a very important role; but
POC's role is important as well. And of course, so are the registrars.

Forgive me for running on like this...

> still waiting for pab votes resoults and hope than to be ablle
> to congratulate you as pab chairman

Well thank you. However, Peter is also an *excellent* candidate, and
I'm sure we will both continue to contribute, regardless of who wins.

> thank you
> sascha

-- 
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