If. Neither of these is given. I don't know what Jon will do, but
there are many ways that the GP plan could go awry. And
[...]
> And what of POC / PAB and the MoU itself?
>
> PAB is already dead in the water due to the fact that most of its members
> were in it to be a registrar (they maybe having second thoughts now), and
> very few other signatories are taking part.
I sometimes wonder why you continue as a member of PAB, Peter. If you
believe that PAB is dead, then there is no really no rational reason
to continue as a member -- hanging around watching dead things is
rather ghoulish, don't you think?
> POC continues to justify its position, attempting to influence others,
> without the marketing skills of the business world.
>
> And the gTLD-Mou itself is very much at odds with a model proposed by the
> Government of the United States of America.
>
> Are we so committed to our view of the world that we wont or cant
> change?
Change to what?
I am reminded of the movie "Independence Day" when the cartoon heroic
president says to the captured alien, "What do you want us to do?"
The alien hisses "Die!"
The GP has no place for PAB and POC, and very little place for CORE.
That leaves us two choices -- work to change the GP, or work around
the GP.
These choices are not mutually exclusive, and, in fact, they are very
synergistic -- the more likely it looks that the gTLD effort will
ignore the GP, the more likely the GP will change. By leaving so
little for the MoU in the GP, Magaziner has given us very little to
lose. Thus, there is nothing at all to gain by assuming he will be
nice if we are -- we have very few chips, if we play his game, and he
is playing for keeps -- that is clear.
<personal point of view>
So, as a STRICTLY PERSONAL MATTER, if CORE works with Postel/ISOC to
set up an independent IANA, I will PERSONALLY support that effort, and
I will PRIVATELY encourage PAB members to do so as well. I think that
it is by far the strongest negotiating strategy we have.
>From my point of view, there are two possibilities: either 1) Jon is a
government contractor, and what he has done up to now was done with
implicit approval of the government. Therefore, his signature on the
MoU is binding, and the USG is abrogating a contract it is bound to.
Or 2) Jon's activities as IANA were not part of any contract, and the
government is not bound by his actions. In that case, the governments
attempt to control the transition to a non-profit organization for
IANA is an unwarranted attempt to control private actions.
Either way, the government is doing something unlawful.
</personal point of view>
-- 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