> > The PAB does not represent the Internet community. It represents
> > a tiny portion of the Internet community.
>
> I never said that PAB represents the Internet community. I said that
> the PAB(an entity) and the Internet community(another entity of which
> PAB may be a subset)should have something to say.
The PAB _should_ represent the Internet community. It doesn't.
If you want to oppose the Green Paper, what you need above all is
support. If you have support, if the signatories to the gTLD MOU
represent a significant fraction of the Internet community, then
you have a reasonable chance of arguing against the more objectionable
parts of the Green Paper. Without support you will be (rightfully)
ignored.
> > It is still possible for the PAB to become representative. If you want
> > it to become representative, open up the process.
>
> I alway thought that the present process is very open. I remembered you
> saying(correct me if I am wrong again in quoting you)a less open
> invitation may be able to attract more members.
No. A brief description of what happened: I proposed that signatories
be allowed to appoint joint representatives. Broomfield said that in
that case people would just make up imaginary companies to cheat in the
voting. I said, well, the POC and ITU are supposed to invite signatures,
according to the gTLD MOU, so they should deal with the imaginary
companies problem. Maher said, no, the invitation is open (meaning that
no one checks applicants). So I said, well, in that case a less open
invitation would make more sense.
In other words, someone should check to see that the entities signing
the gTLD MOU actually exist and have a bona fide interest in the Internet.
> > 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, if the current members of the POC so believe(that what the former
> members had done were wrong) then they should do as you suggested, else
> they should not do it just for political expediency .
The circumstances call for political expediency.
> > I see. What is that purpose?
>
> More active participations from more members(thus more rep. i.e. new
> blood)instead of officially having a lot more members but very few rep.
> to participate.
If I get the time, I will run a check on the PAB archives to see how many
participate. My guess is 6 to 12 people.
> > 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.
>
> I disagee here.
> Kent is brand new and he does not dictate.
Uhm, from close up Kent doesn't look brand new. 50-ish, I think. ;-)
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015