I think Kent has a pretty clear idea of how PAB works. PAB is more or
less self-governing and self-organising. The members are appointed by
signatories to the gTLD-MoU, however the members themselves are NOT
signatories (remember, it's companies/organisations that sign).
> > 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.
It's not even near normal. Not even in government is one person allowed
to cast
votes on behalf of others. A single person is not allowed to represent
two
states or two regions, at the UN a small country gets the same vote as a
large country. Note that when important issues come up, many polictical
parties sometimes even have ambulances carting in sick MP's to cast
their
vote, even though its as clear as water that it's a block vote for a
certain
party.
PAB as such decides the way it works, and Kent has pointed out that the
issue
you are talking about has ALREADY come up in PAB, and actually there was
a
very big consensus that it was one person=one vote (I dissented, arguing
in
favour of what you are currently suggesting, but was convinced
otherwise).
PAB works more or less in the same way as the IETF, and you get the same
respect (or lack of) whether you work for CISCO, MICROSOFT or mom&pop
corner
store.
PAB is an advisory body, as such it gives advice.
> 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.
Agreed 100% However please try and keep the distinction between PAB and
the
gTLD-MoU.
> 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.
There is NO control here: show up and you get listened to. Don't show up
and you are silent (obviously). Show up and act all pompous (ie, say you
represent millions) and you'll get scoffed at.
> > 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?
No, actually only one. Me. And I've been convinced to the contrary. As
you
can see, nobody else in PAB has defended your idea, so I'd say it would
be
fair to say that there is general consensus that your idea is not a good
one,
however it is for the chair to assess consensus, not for me. Votes are
only
taken when there is no clear consensus or 10 dissents are given.
> > 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.
180 signatories, but I have no idea how many readers of the list. In any
case, things DO get discussed, and if only two or three were saying
things,
then if what they were saying seemed sensible, and nobody was opposing
them,
you could probably call a consensus...
The idea of "rough consensus" is precisely that: rough (in both senses).
> 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.
If you consider the way votes are assigned to be deck-chair arranging,
then
why the hell are you so bothered with it. The fact that you do go into
discussing it with such passion makes me think that it's more than
simple
chair arranging... Hijacking the procedure is one thing that comes to
mind.
Yours, John Broomfield.