>The above is a pretty good summary of my own intent when participating in
>the gTLD MoU structure's definition. The desire was to have a way of
>assessing "community views" as the IETF does. However the IETF has a very
>different history and operational base, so that it was felt a distinct,
>formal body was needed as the specific "reference" for community interest.
>Hence, the PAB very much was/is intended to embody the public interest.
>But note the word I used. "Embody" is only meaningful in terms of the
>bodies that are present.
>In other words, the way you each represent the public interest is by having
>a generic desire to do just that, but a specific desire to represent your
>own interests. By having a wide range of PAB members, we get a wide range
>of self-interests. And THAT is the essence of a real public interest...
This is *exactly* as I see it!
>As to the concern over signing the MoU, I'll note that it is an absurdly
>low barrier, given that there are no contractual obligations, so that
>requiring signature primarily means that a) you've given it some review
>and, therefore, have a basic ability to participate in discussions about
>it, and b) want to work on improving things. One can only wonder that
>anyone would find this a prolem.
Well the major reason few organisations have signed it is they dont know
about it, and those what do have not had the benefits of it communicated
to them in clear simple terms, followed by an invitation to sign.
I dont see the problems with the existing MoU as much of a barrier to
sign it. Any organisation that does has not been sold on the benefits.
regards
Peter Mott
Chief Enthusiast
2Day Internet Limited.
--------------------------------------------
gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee observer