> > The argument for the current setup is that the PAB is basically a
> > talking shop, a place to kick around ideas. In such a context who
> > you represent is not important. It's what you say that counts, and
> > those who don't contribute to the discussion should have no say on
> > its outcome.
>
> And such bodies can clearly come up with policy. In a technical
> framework, the IETF has several thousand members, and they manage
> quite well to come to consensus on technical standards and policies.
> The IETF does this by imposing an internal structure of working
> groups, area chairs, and so on. If the PAB grows to a comparable
> size, of course structure will evolve to deal with it.
No need to worry about that, Kent, not the way things are going.
> > Unfortunately the PAB is also intended in some vague way to be a
> > mechanism for gathering and expressing support. In this role, votes
> > matter a great deal and representation is very important.
>
> The PAB is not intended as a body for "gathering and expressing
> support". Remember that the PAB is the "Policy ADVISORY Body". It's
> not the "Policy DICTATING Body". The PAB is a body for gathering
> input on policy matters from the widest possible range of
> stakeholders.
The gTLD MOU has no support. Very few people have signed it. You
are demonstrating very clearly why.
The gTLD MOU itself says very little about the purpose of the PAB.
Various members of the POC have said that IF there is a clear
consensus in the PAB for a change in the MOU, the change will be
made.
Your reasoning is clearly circular: the PAB works like this, so it
has to work like this.
Wrong. It can work anyway that we like. The question is how the
current non-functional gTLD MOUvement works. The question is how
it ought to work if it is to succeed.
> The model you suggest would simply eliminate the influence of small
> entities -- There are, in very rough figures, 200 PAB members, some
> appointed by very small entities, some appointed by very large
> entities. The model you suggest would allow the head of EuroISPA to
> sign and suddenly wield between 500 and 1000 votes (you claim that
> EuroISPA represents between 500 and 1000 ISPs). If we did that small
> entities would become completely irrelevant to policy making.
This is what we call the Big Lie tactic. I have at no point suggested
that EuroISPA would sign the gTLD MOU. On the contrary. What I have
said is that under certain circumstances EuroISPA would urge its _members_
to sign. The conditions are that (a) signatories be allowed to designate
their representative and (b) people representing more than one organization
have a corresponding number of votes.
This isn't odd or strange. It's simply normal.
I am not suggesting that any particular person act as the sole
representative of EuroISPA. Nor am I suggesting that EuroISPA be the
only large organization supporting the gTLD MOU. On the contrary, I
believe that if the gTLD MOU's fortunes are to be reveresed, a large
number of organizations must swing their support behind it.
But this is not going to happen if the same gTLD MOUvement uses the
same old tactics as before: get them to sign the MOU but make sure
that they have minimal influence, that the same old people retain
control.
The gTLD MOU will succeed *ONLY* if you lose control. Get used to the
idea.
> > > Personally,I would look to settle on the 1st issue then adapt / evolve the
> > > systems / technology required to cope with the requirement.
> > >
> > > In other words dont settle on a system of having a few represent many simply> > because thats how it's always been done, or because there is a communication> > management problem to overcome.
> >
> > We have only a short time to settle on a common policy. I would not
> > spend that time in abstract theoretical discussions and attempts to
> > evolve new technologies.
>
> Personally, I don't want to spend time on theoretical discussions
> about how to revamp the voting policy, either. That's a big deal,
Why is it a big deal? What difference does it really make? Why do you
care so much? How many people have actually spoken up against this policy?
Is it three? Or posssibly four?
> clearly emotions will run high, and there is simply no fair way that
> such a shift in policy could be implemented in a few weeks. The PAB
> Chair (me) is not a dictator, and I can't order such a change, even if
> I wanted to.
No one is suggesting that you order it, Kent.
What I am clearly saying is that the PAB is an unrepresentative body
whose decisions are made by an even more unrepresentative minority.
Unless it becomes more representative, it and the gTLD MOU are no
alternative to the proposals of the Green Paper.
> As Chair, my primary role is to determine if consensus exists. It is
> quite clear in that there is only one voice in PAB calling for such a
> change, and that is you. Not a single other person has indicated
> support for your plan, and several have spoken strongly against it.
> The consensus is clear.
You are ignoring Antony Van Couvering's quite sensible suggestions.
Your notion of consensus is bizarre. There are 180 signatories to the
gTLD MOU. By your lights if you and two or three others say something
often enough, you have reached consensus.
> If you want to effect such a change you will have to persuade more
> people that it is a good idea.
But if you want the gTLD MOU not to disappear without a trace next month,
you will have to persuade a lot of people to support it. Your insistence
that the deck chairs be lined up THIS way instead of THAT way will not
stop the Titanic from sinking.
-- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member of Council President Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65