Jim, I love it when you twist my words. This is what I said:
JB No, signing the gTLD-MoU doesn't give you automatically a vote on
PAB,
JB it opens the doors for you to participate or not in PAB if you want,
JB and participation means precisely that. Not that you name someone
else
JB on your behalf
[hint: don't just quote the first phrase, it is out of context if read
alone and can lead to confusion, which I'm *sure* is NOT what you want,
is it?]
In no way do I say that it doesn't qualify you for a vote, just that you
to actively take your vote. Try to hijack (as is possible) and it would
be worked around.
> I point out that there is a simple way to deal with this: according
> to the gTLD MOU, the ITU or the POC must invite organizations to
> sign.
>
> You say that actually it is an open invitation, and anyone can sign.
>
> Catch 22: this means that they don't necessarily have a vote, because
> you haven't actually checked them individually.
>
> Common sense would suggest that a less open invitation would actually
> persuade more people to sign the gTLD MOU.
Interesting the way that you argue that because it is open it is accused
of having no support, but making it closed would garner more. Seems a
complete 180 to your point of opening CORE, where you argued that it was
a good idea to relax qualifications to garner more support, as stronger
qualification would get less support.
Make up your mind please, and then tell me which one it is. Is stricter
better or not?
Btw, I *love* your response where I can't even have a message of mine
forwarded to the ISPA membership unless I join... Are you shading them
from something perhaps? Do they know that you are actively censoring
them?
Yours, John Broomfield.