PAB [Fwd: BOUNCE pab@gtld-mou.org: Non-member submission

Robert Shaw (robert.shaw@itu.int)
Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:19:54 +0100


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------D3483AA80DCB01837711DEA2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

fowarded

-- 
Robert Shaw <robert.shaw@itu.int>
Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure
International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int>
Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
--------------D3483AA80DCB01837711DEA2
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from sigma.itu.ch (sigma.itu.ch [156.106.128.30]) by ties.itu.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA10312 for <SHAW@SEIT.ITU.CH>; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:33:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com) by ITU.CH (PMDF V5.0-6 #16074) id <01IS6PJC8GF4AYK7LP@ITU.CH> for robert.shaw@ITU.CH; Fri, 09 Jan 1998 20:32:58 +0200 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id LAA01989; Fri, 09 Jan 1998 11:28:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 11:28:31 -0800 (PST) From: owner-pab@gtld-mou.org Subject: BOUNCE pab@gtld-mou.org: Non-member submission from ["J. William Semich" <bsemich@mail.nu>] To: owner-pab@gtld-mou.org Message-id: <199801091928.LAA01989@mail.proper.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>From owner-pab Fri Jan 9 11:28:27 1998 Received: from ns3.niue.net (ns3.niue.net [199.103.194.133]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA01984 for <pab@gtld-mou.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 11:28:26 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199801091928.LAA01984@mail.proper.com> Received: from ns3.niue.net [199.103.194.133] by ns3.niue.net (SMTPD32-4.02c) id AB7E67029A; Fri, 09 Jan 1998 14:33:18 EST5EST From: "J. William Semich" <bsemich@mail.nu> Reply-To: "J. William Semich" <bsemich@mail.nu> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 98 14:33:18 EST5EST To: pab@gtld-mou.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Subject: Re: PAB Consensus Call: Email archives

Hello all;

As many of you know, I have opposed this concept in the past, as something that could work against us. However, I've reconsidered and now believe we should, first, open the windows to PAB (post the archive publiclly) and then, and as soon as possible, open the doors as well (through PAB lite).

It will soon be too late to give evidence that we represent the Internet as a community - we still have some time to bring that wider community into PAB. But time's a-waistin' as they say.

My $.02 worth - I say yes to posting the archive.

Regards,

Bill Semich The Internet Users Society bssmich@users.org

Original-From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> Original-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:51:03 -0800

Peter and I have discussed this a bit privately in the past. I appreciate him presenting his objections, and, though I disagree, I value his integrity in presenting them.

On Fri, Jan 09, 1998 at 07:19:53PM +1300, Peter Mott wrote: > > That the pab@gtld-mou.org mailing list be continuously archived as > > of Jan 1, 1998, and that the archive be made available to the > > public. > > I appose this proposal. > E Participation in PAB requires a commitment in the form of signing the > gTLD-MoU. > > The PAB exists in my view to represent the needs of these signatories > and no other person or organisation.

This is a fundamental issue:

Does PAB exist to represent only the views of signatories, or does it have a larger responsibility?

Before Peter brought this up my automatic assumption has been the later, based on the wording in the MoU about "public trust". That is, PAB (and POC and to some extent CORE) have signed and agreement (the MoU) to, as best they can, take on the responsibility of representing the public -- even if they smell bad, and spit in our face.

Peter now presents an alternate view, one that I believe is not supported by the MoU. I would not have signed the MoU, in fact, if I didn't believe the phrase "public trust" had important implications. So I believe there is a strong ethical component to an argument for an open list. However, Peter's point of view has an ethical component, as well.

> Access to correspondence is in my view a priviledge of those who have > committed to working with each other to support the objectives they > have agreed to. > > Making it available to a wider audience would in my view provide > a resource for those who would seek to discredit the organisation.

Is this true? I'm not sure it is -- anybody would have the option of researching any particular claim in full context. It is just as likely, in my view, that an open archive would provide a resource for supporters.

On the other hand, we have taken a PR beating because the list is closed.

> As we also have competitor organisations, they would have an open > door into our policy making machine. This seems unwise to me.

If we could in fact guarantee that the list was private, then this would be a good point -- we lose any advantage of surprise. But, as has been pointed out, our competitors actually have access to the list anyway.

> It may also inhibit participation by discouraging PAB folk to be less > than candid about what they say, knowing it will soon be available for > the world to read.

Yes, this is a possibility. I note, though, that this has simply not been a problem in the IETF.

> If I could see a compelling argument for the benefits of hanging > our correspondence out for all and sundry to read, I am prepared > to review my position.

Aside from the ethical considerations, there is the issue of practical advantages. There are two primary advantages I see: 1) we diffuse a PR problem; and 2) we provide ourselves with a organizational memory.

This last point is the most important concrete benefit. How many people remember the original discussion about charters, for example? Several times in the past it has been mentioned that it would be good if new members had access to an archive of previous mail. People have written lengthy documents and posted them to the list -- without an archive they disappear. An email archive is actually an extremely useful tool for PAB members. I personally have an archive that includes over 3600 messages. I use it constantly -- I seldom look at really old messages, but I look over the past couple months of ミ0Amessages very frequently (of course, I have a rotten memory...)

The possibility of a private archive for PAB members only has been mentioned. It is my considered opinion that it is a practical impossibility to maintain privacy across 200 people on the net, and it is not even worth trying. The benefit here is sort of a negative one -- we get to avoid the work of trying to maintain privacy.

-- 
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

--------------D3483AA80DCB01837711DEA2--