I wrote a long response to this right after the POC composition issue was
bruited. I copied it to the PAB list.
In summary, my thoughts are as follows:
That, absent sufficient safeguards, the proposal makes the POC the
executive council for PAB, effectively gutting the function and
effectiveness of PAB. If PAB elects a full half of POC, and if POC runs
things, and if the POC reps from PAB don't report fully to PAB, which in
our experience they have a tendency not to do, then the PAB will have no
independent existence and the distinction between PAB and POC will be an
academic one. I feel that if we want this to happen -- and there are
arguments pro and con -- we should at least decide on it, instead of having
it happen under the guise of a reform of POC.
A large part of the "POC recomposition" actually hinges on reconstituting
the PAB. We would be setting up separate constituencies within PAB, with
an as-yet-undefined way of selecting these constituencies. Again, if we're
going to talk about changing the composition of PAB, let's do that, and not
pretend that we're talking about POC.
The new PAB constituencies have the potential to be very divisive.
My recommendations:
1. Make sure that the PAB has a separate leadership that does *not* include
the PAB reps on POC. Otherwise there will be no effective distinction
between the two groups.
2. Insist on a clearly method for defining how the PAB members will fit
into their new constituencies, and a clear method for voting on them.
3. Insist that this is a larger issue than POC is pretending that it is.
It affects PAB greatly as well, and PAB recomposition cannot be considered
a separate issue. The PAB would be foolish to accept the premise that this
is only about POC.
4. In view of my third suggestion, I think that the PAB ought to include
anyone who wants to join. I don't think they should have to sign the full
gTLD-MoU. I would again propose a "gTLD-MoU lite" that would include only
the principles outlined in Paragraph 2 of the gTLD-MoU.
Thanks for your time,
Antony
At 04:09 PM 1/7/98 -0800, Dan Busarow wrote:
>PAB's response to POC on the issue if POC composition is seriously
>overdue. A copy of the original request and Javier's straw poll are
>attached. I've gone through my archives (which are incomplete) on the
>subject and find the following suggestions:
>
>1) Reduce IANA, IAB and ISOC to one seat each
>
>2) Reduce CORE to one seat which would also be non-voting
>
>3) Add a constituency group for trademark interests
>
>4) Change the 3 at large reps by reducing the number to two
>and changing the current geographic selection criteria so that
>there is one at large representative with no geographic restrictions
>and one at large representative from a non-OECD country.
>
>5) Change the constituency based voting to a system in which each
>signatory may cast 4 votes*. Those votes may go to any of the
>constituencies. * based on the proposed 9 positions.
>
>Have I missed any suggestions/comments?
>
>Please let us know what your thoughts are on this issue. By changing
>the composition of POC and giving PAB the power to elect 1/2 of POC,
>this proposal is likely to be one of the more important issues
>we discuss for quite a while.
>
>To start things off, my feeling is that 1) is a little extreme.
>If I felt compelled to change the numbers there I would leave IANA
>and IAB as is and change ISOC to one non-voting member. My reasoning
>is that we need to insure that there are enough technical votes
>to prevent (or at least hinder) politicians from doing something foolish.
>
>I disagree with 2, CORE has a big stake in this process and deserves
>represention and a voice (votes).
>
>Much as I'd like the DNS to be separated from TM issues I believe
>the reality is that it cannot. Therefore 3 should be accepted and
>proposed.
>
>I didn't have a problem with the original geographic split but I
>really like the idea of having one representative from a non-OECD
>country. I'd like to see 4 included also. It has the side benefit
>of freeing up a slot for the additional rep proposed in 3.
>
>The self selection of a particular constituency and voting that
>way is the one issue that really bothered me about the original
>proposal. I think that allowing members to spread their votes
>over roughly half of the available positions is a big plus. It
>provides an incentive to vote responsibly without being divisive.
>Definitely include 5 in the formal proposal.
>
>Dan
>--
> Dan Busarow 714 443 4172
> DPC Systems / Beach.Net dan@dpcsys.com
> Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 22:19:10 +0100
>From: Javier SOLA <jsola@aui.es>
>To: pab@gtld-mou.org
>Subject: PAB Composition of POC
>
>PAB:
>
>The most important issue that we have on the table is the composition of
>POC. The actual proposal is to add nine members to POC, all of them elected
>by PAB, maintain the ones that are already there, except for ITU and WIPO
>who become non-voting.
>
>- POC will therefore have:
> 9 members elected by PAB
> 2 members elected by CORE
> 7 ex-officio voting members
> 2 ex-officio non-voting members
>
>I will try to ask very specific questions. If you think other questions
>should be added, please say so.
>
>Please answer, even if it is only to agree with the proposal.
>
>The proposal says about the new seats:
>
> Include in POC representatives of the following groups:
>
> 1. Operators and service providers - (3 representatives)
> 2. Business organizations other than operators and service providers (2
>representatives)
> 3. Consumers (1 representative)
> 4. At large members distributed geographically:
> a. Americas - one
> b. Europe, Africa and the Middle East - one
> c. Asia-Pacific - one
>
>1) Do you think that this distribution includes all the major players ?
>
>2) Is it fair to the parties involved (constituencies) ? (excluding CORE
>and ex-officio, in this question)
>
>2b) Do you think that geographical distribution could be attained in some
>other way ?
>
>3) Would you propose any changes ?
>
>4) Do you think that constituency representatives should only be voted by
>PAB members that are part of that constituency or by all members of PAB ?
>
>The proposal says that the following shall continue to be members of POC:
>
> 1. Two persons appointed by ISOC
> 2. Two persons appointed by IANA
> 3. Two persons appointed by IAB
> 4. Two persons appointed by CORE
> 5. One person appointed by INTA
> 6. One person appointed by WIPO (with non-voting status)
> 7. One person appointed by ITU (with non-voting status)
>
>5) Do you agree with this ? Do you want to add a counter proposal ?
>
>6) Do you think that the overall composition of POC as a whole represents
>all the interests in the Internet in a fair way (if such a thing exists) ?
>
>Javier
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>The proposal:
>
>_____________________________
>
>At the meeting of POC held in Brussels on 24 and 25 November, we
>addressed the single most serious issue remaining to be decided by POC,
>namely how to fulfill our publicly stated commitment to propose a plan
>for expansion of the POC.
> Two days of meetings produced what I believe is a rough consensus. I
>recognize that the emphasis is on "rough". There were strongly held
>views on some subjects that may be outside the consensus set forth
>below. This draft is being posted to both POC and PAB for discussion and
>comment before it is released to the public for further discussion and
>comment. THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE PUBLIC UNTIL POC AND PAB HAVE
>HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT.
>********************************************************************
> DRAFT
>
> The rough consensus of the Policy Oversight Commitee (“POC”) regarding
>expansion of the POC to represent more clearly the entire spectrum of
>interests of the stakeholders of the Internet community is described in
>this document. As a part of the consensus, the POC has decided to
>solicit public comment on the expansion proposal.
>
> I. Introduction
>
> From the inception of the International Ad Hoc Committee (“IAHC”) in
>September, 1997, the IAHC and its successors, the interim POC, and now
>the POC have explicitly and publicly recognized the need for
>evolutionary growth and development of the entire program for expansion
>of the generic top level domain name system, including the composition
>of the POC. The IAHC was formed and chartered by the Internet Assigned
>Numbers Authority (“IANA”) and the Internet Society (“ISOC”) to develop
>this expansion program. The original eleven members of the IAHC were
>chosen to represent as broad as possible a range of interests in the
>Internet community, as to be geographically distributed. The selection
>of members succeeded in bringing together a diversity of views and a
>geographically well distributed group, but the limitation to eleven
>members, and the selection process, directed initially by IANA and ISOC,
>has been criticized as not giving explicit recognition to some interest
>groups.
>
> The gTLD-MoU now provides that the POC consists of twelve members
>appointed as follows:
> IANA - two appointments
> ISOC - two appointments
> Internet Architecture Board (“IAB”) - two appointments
> Council of Registrars (“CORE”) - two appointments
> International Trademark Association (“INTA”) - one appointment
> World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) - one appointment
> International Telecommunications Union (“ITU”) - one appointment
> Representative of the Depository of the Memorandum of Understanding on
>the Generic Top Level Domain Name Space of the Internet Domain
>Name System (“gTLD-MoU”) (the ITU) - one appointment
>
> The POC has agreed to an amendment to the gTLD-MoU to provide for the
>appointment of two additional members to be appointed by the Policy
>Advisory Body (“PAB”). Pending the formal amendment, which requires
>action by IANA and ISOC, PAB has appointed two observers to POC.
>
> Terms of the above appointments are for three years, except that the
>organizations appointing two members initially appoint one for a one
>year term, and the other for a three year term. The gTLD-MoU directs
>each appointing group to endeavour to achieve equitable geographic
>distribution.
>
> (Further explanation of the identity and composition of the appointing
>bodies referred to above may be found at the POC web site:
>http://www.gtld-mou.org.)
>
> II. The Consensus
>
> In fulfillment of the promise of an evolutionary process, the POC has
>reached consensus on an expansion of POC to be achieved over a period of
>eighteen months, with an appropriate transitional structure to ensure
>stability in the administration of the gTLD-MoU program.
>
> Effective upon formal adoption by POC of this expansion program, and
>for a period of eighteen months thereafter, the gTLD-MoU will be amended
>to provide that POC shall have twenty members as follows:
>
> The PAB will have the power to elect nine members of POC. Nominations
>may be made by any member of PAB; each PAB member may nominate not more
>than one nominee; nominees need not necessarily be connected or
>affiliated with the nominating organization. Each nomination shall
>include a designation of the nominee as falling within one of the
>following classifications:
> 1. Operators and service providers - three
> 2. Business organizations other than operators and service providers -
>two
> 3. Consumers - one
> 4. At large members distributed geographically:
> a. Americas - one
> b. Europe, Africa and the Middle East - one
> c. Asia-Pacific - one
>Nominations by PAB shall be completed within one month following
>adoption of this expansion program by POC, and elections of members
>shall be conducted not later than three months following adoption. Each
>PAB member must select one and only one of the first three
>classifications in which it will cast one vote, and must select one and
>only one of the three geographic areas in which it may cast one
>additional vote. The nominees receiving the highest number of votes in
>each category will be elected.
>
> The following shall continue to be members of POC:
> 1. Two persons appointed by ISOC
> 2. Two persons appointed by IANA
> 3. Two persons appointed by IAB
> 4. Two persons appointed by CORE
> 5. One person appointed by INTA
> 6. One person appointed by WIPO (with non-voting status)
> 7. One person appointed by ITU (with non-voting status)
>
> Prior to the expiration of the eighteen month transition period, the
>POC shall determine, by vote of not less than two-thirds of the voting
>members of POC, the composition of the POC thereafter in whatever form
>the POC may determine.
> The gTLD-MoU shall further be amended to provide that, effective at the
>expiration of the eighteen month transition period, the gTLD-MoU may
>thereafter be amended by vote of at least two-thirds of the voting
>members of POC.
>