> Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> >
> > Perry,
> >
> > I have to disagree. I think Jim is full of himself, argumentative,
> > pendantic and pushy
>
> Dear Antony
> I agree with you here, I may get flamed together with you but I guess we
> just can't help it.
Yep. Jim can't help it either ;-)
> (I will get flamed, he can't help it), but he's
> > basically right.
>
> However, I do not agree with you here(that Jim is right). I do agree
> that PAB needs more members and new blood but I don't agree that we
> should agree to let one person represent 500 members. At the end of
> day, we don't get much new blood this way.
[Comment from someone reading over my shoulder: "I don't know why you
are wasting your time."]
What I actually proposed was that (a) organizations signing the MOU be
allowed to designate a representative and (b) when one person was
designated as the representative of more than one signatory, this
be taken into consideration when reaching decisions. This is scarcely
a radical proposal; it's just normal practice for political and business
bodies.
More specifically, I believe that I said that EuroISPA might encourage
its member associations to urge their members to join, and in such
cases the member associations might appoint a representative and
recommend that members designate that person as their representative.
ISPA UK, for example, which has 80+ members, might recommend that
members designate a common ISPA UK representative. I also made it
clear that there was no guarantee either that ISPA UK would appoint
me or that I would agree to represent ISPA UK. At no point did I
suggest that EuroISPA would appoint a single representative.
Sorry to be so long-winded, but if people were more careful in quoting
what I say I would not have to spend so much time and bandwidth
correcting it.
> > One good result of the Magaziner putsch is that it really jolted the real
> > powers into awareness. Now we are going to see what non-U.S. governments
> > have to say about the U.S. asserting ownership of the Internet, and also
> > what the still-powerful Internet elements in major U.S. tech companies have
> > to say about the bottom-up approach of the Internet getting stood on its.
> > If the gTLD-MoU is going to get resuscitated, it will come from the heat
> > that these two groups generate.
>
> May be not only these 2 groups. The PAB and the Internet community
> should have some thing to say.
The PAB does not represent the Internet community. It represents
a tiny portion of the Internet community.
It is still possible for the PAB to become representative. If you want
it to become representative, open up the process. Make it possible to
recommend to sensible organizations that they sign the gTLD MOU.
> > Heat there will be. Question is, will the gLTD-MoU be seen as a viable
> > alternative? To be frank, I don't think that it will be, by Americans
> > anyway, with the current leadership. That's not to say that a new group
> > couldn't do any better, but when your team gets the stuffing knocked out of
> > them, you fire the coach and get some new blood. It presents a new look
> > and does actually inspire some new vigor. It also allows you to give "good
> > news" to the outside.
>
> I don't think that the POC had done so badly that we need to fire them
> now(unless I misunderstood you, are you referring to POC when you used
> the word "coach"?)
The POC has actually gone through a large change of membership recently.
It would be easy enough for the current POC to blame all of the
deficiencies of the gTLD MOU on former members, rewrite it radically,
and announce this very good news to the outside world.
> > Well, the POC isn't going to resign. CORE has reopened their membership,
> > although I can't imagine any early takers. The best hope for this is the
> > PAB, and the way to invigorate the PAB is to get some new blood in here.
>
> I agree but I don't see any obstacle for any one to join the PAB as it
> is right now. However, I do not agree to a person representing 500
> members, (or for this matter, even 3 or 4 members). I think this defeat
> the purpose of PAB membership.
I see. What is that purpose?
> > There is no doubt that the gTLD-MoU movement is in a crisis; anyone who
> > says it isn't is in deep denial. On the other hand, everything else is a
> > worse alternative -- the Green Paper is a real mess, NSI is transparently
> > in it for themselves, and eDNS people are deluded.
> >
> > The big problem has been, in my opinion, a series of bungles designed to
> > "protect" the gTLD-MoU from undesirable elements.
>
> I don't think so, the charter drafted by Kent looks good and it even
> specifically specifies that no PAB members is to be censored on the
> list. Any organization can become PAB member now if it has signed the
> MOU.
To the outside world, the new charter will look like yet another attempt
by the old guard to control the gTLD MOU process, to prevent any new blood
from having any say in things.
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015