I largely agree with Antony here, though I would word it differently
:-). It's not that this proposal would do serious damage to PAB per
se -- PAB is at this point *already* an intrinsically weak body.
While David's suggestions have the potential to further marginalize
PAB, they also have the potential to infuse a lot of energy.
What is missing is an overall view of the relationship between PAB and
POC. A model something like POC == IAB and PAB == IETF, for example,
would not be bad -- it just depends on what problems the combination
is trying to solve.
To get a good handle on that issue you have to back it up yet one
more level: other than their own structure and interrelationships,
what kind of problems are the POC/PAB supposed to deal with?
By charter, the problem domain is "policy issues" concerning the CORE
registrars. Anyone want to take a stab at defining what those might
be? I have, but unfortunately there are lots of free variables in
the equation...
However, I would like to address the rest of this message to another
point:
There is a really significant difference between PAB/POC and IAB/IETF:
if you want to participate in an IETF working group you just
participate. There is *no* barrier to entry -- *all* the WG activity
is open to *anyone* who wants to participate. One of the striking
characteristics of the IETF, in fact, is it's openness.
In PAB/POC/CORE, however, closed lists and closed discussion are the
rule, rather than the exception. There is a subtle habit of secrecy
that pervades PAB, POC, and CORE. IMO, this is a terrible mistake.
There can be no question that it has cost the MoU dearly from a public
relations standpoint.
More to the point, however, I believe that it costs the MoU dearly
in terms of effectiveness.
Example: the CORE mailing list is private, and many, if not most, PAB
members are not privy to what goes on in CORE. Perhaps even most POC
members are not privy to what is happening in CORE. How can PAB
possibly provide effective policy input without information. CORE, I
believe (though I don't know) is deciding issues like ethics
requirements for registrars, charges to support the CORE-SRS, and the
like. There may or may not be policy issues for POC/PAB there, but
*we don't know*.
Example: Antony has mentioned several times that he is unsatisfied
with the way that POC observers report back to PAB. To me this is
short-sighted -- the problem isn't really with the POC observers --
the problem is that we need them in the first place.
I understand, far better than most, that there are times when secrecy
is important. But, in the MoU context those times are very rare. I
believe that virtually all such cases can be handled by people meeting
in person, calling each other on the telephone, or setting up private
lists (perhaps just using aliases) to communicate with a private
group.
Without exception, I see no need for institutionalized secret lists
anywhere in PAB, POC, or CORE. That is, *all* the official mailing
lists for PAB, POC, and CORE should be archived, and the archives
should be available to the public.
This is not the same as allowing the "public" to subscribe to any
particular list -- there are of course many valid reasons why list
subscriptions might be limited. But there is no reason why the
content of the lists should not be available to the public. It might
change people's habits, in terms of what they move to private email
and so on, but that is simply not a big deal. The benefits of a
public archive far outway that minor inconvenience.
Before Christmas I posted a proposal that the contents of the PAB list
be archived in a publicly readable archive as of Jan 1, 1998. The
election delays intruded, but I have not noticed any particularly
private exchanges on the list since that date. Therefore, I revive
the proposal, and I make a formal call for consensus on the question.
I believe the rule that Antony used was that if there are 10
dissenting opinions the matter may be put to a vote, though the
Chair may have some flexibility in the matter.
I will post a formal proposal to this effect this evening, but if you
have objections you should start thinking about them.
-- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "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