Jeff Williams wrote:
> Jim Dixon wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > > Common sense would suggest that a less open invitation would actually
> > > > persuade more people to sign the gTLD MOU.
> > > ...
> > > You are correct -- this is really a *very* broad range of interested
> > > stakeholders -- the MoU was intended to be as inclusive as possible.
> > >
> > > However, you apparently prefer a "less open invitation".
> >
> > It is difficult to understand why this is so difficult to understand.
> >
> > * I said "if 500 organizations sign, they should be able to
> > appoint anyone they choose as representative"
> >
> > * Broomfield said something like "well, we can't verify that
> > these 500 organizations are real, so we couldn't let them
> > do that" - not taking into account that the same reasoning
> > applied no matter how many organizations are involved
The heart of the matter here is that our friend Jim wants to have one
organisation (Euro-ISPA) sign up, claim that he speaks for 500 ISPs,
and therefore have vested in one single person 500 votes.
>From there he said, ok, then I get all 500 to sign, all of them name
a rep (the same one, so I presume he means himself, but the person
doesn't really matter), and then I get 500 votes.
> > * I said (all these quotes are paraphrases) "but the ITU and
> > POC are supposed to vet each application"
> >
> > * Maher said, "no, it's an open invitation"
> >
> > * I said "well, if your open invitation means that people who
> > sign aren't entitled to vote, perhaps a more closed policy
> > would be better"
> >
> > I don't prefer a less open invitation. I prefer that someone be
> > responsible for verifying signatories, so that Broomfield can't
> > invoke his silly argument about non-existent companies.
My argument is pretty simple. The gTLD-MoU is a document signed by
organisations.
The PAB is a group where participation is done by individuals and rough
consensus methods apply, much in the same way that happens on the IETF.
Rough consensus and voting counting are used in completely different
situations. Where voting is a major activity, deciding who merits or not
a vote is a major task, as otherwise the system can be hijacked. This
obviously means that each organisation should be individually checked.
Vote weighting is also a complicated issue (eg: does mom&pop ISP deserve
the
same quality of vote as AOL? If not, how do you count).
PAB has it's own way of functioning under the general constraint of
"rough
consensus". Fortunately, BEFORE the "Jim & his 500 votes" issue came up
we had another case where a PAB member was representing 4 companies, and
wanted
to know if he could vote 4 times, but wasn't too sure if it was valid.
The general consensus (with one dissenting voice, actually mine!) was
that
participation on PAB meant exactly that: someone participating. And the
voting,
whenever voting comes up, is: ONE PARTICIPANT=ONE VOTE
My rambling on "non-existant companies" is just one of many reasons why
single
persons should not be vested with multiple votes. The argument is that
it is
trivial to get a listing of loads of company names, sign up on behalf of
all
of them and suddenly claim hundreds of votes. In many countries, setting
up
a legal organisation is a trivial matter, so I can suddenly apply AND
create
500 organisations all of them REAL for peanuts in one of these
countries, from
there submit a signature to the gTLD-MoU on behalf of all of them and
say
that I'm the rep on PAB for all these 500 companies. As mentioned, all
500
exist, however I think you'll agree that it's a transvestite of the
spirit
of the system.
It still *is* open to hijacking, as I can create a lot of different
email
addresses and only have them participate when a vote takes place, but it
would
look more suspicious.
What is wanted on PAB is participation, not just one guy deciding to
hijack
the whole process.
> Non-existant companies are of no consequence really, Jim. Anyone should
> be able to Join Pab and have a vote, either and individual whom has an E-Mail
> address,
> or a company/orginization. And each should have a vote. In the case the
> entity is
> a company, than they should appoint/Vote for a representitive fon PAB. If they
> entity is an individual than they are there own representitive with one vote as
> well.
> So John's argument is moot if you are really intrested ina a truely
> representitive
> of the internet as a whole.
On the contrary, if each appoints a rep (a different one) then there's
no problem.
It means more voices, and more participation, which is what this all
about.
It's dangerous when one claims to speak on behalf of many.
> > EuroISPA will address the problems with the green paper. But we have
> > long believed and still believe that there are serious difficulties
> > with the gTLD MOU. This discussion is about yet another serious
> > difficulty with the gTLD MOU. Someone is threatening to sign the
> > thing? Let's rig the votes.
>
> Rigging the votes seems to be part of the way in which the MoU is
> structured and has been from the biginning. This is one of the major
> problems with the gTLDO-MoU that cannot stand. If it does, which I doubt,
> than you are only replacing NSI an monopoly with a collective dictatorship.
> Not much of an improvement, in its very foundations groups (PAB/POC/CORE).
Unfortunately, it is precisely the opposite which is happening here.
What is NOT wanted is a rigging of the votes. What Jim proposes just
opens
the gates wide open for any type of rigging, and this is a Bad Thing
(tm).
My impression is that Jim wants precisely that: to rig the votes, but in
his
favour.
It's not really that difficult if he proposes that his ISPs really want
to
participate in PAB. They don't HAVE to send messages, they just appoint
a
person from each ISP, put them on the PAB mailing list, and keep silent
except when voting time comes around. Then they *do* send their own
vote.
Jim however seems to fear this, as it seems that he is the head in
censoring
the information that reaches his 200+ (500+?) members. When I asked him
to
forward my reply to his members the answer was no. I can only wonder
what
he's afraid of.
Yours, John Broomfield.