Re: Official PAB position on competing registry administration authorities
Kent Crispin (kent@songbird.com)
Sat, 28 Feb 1998 11:18:17 -0800
On Sat, Feb 28, 1998 at 12:57:35PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 09:47:57 -0800 Dave Crocker
> <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, it remains essential that these groups be operated on a
> > strict cost-recovery basis and with an explicit public oversight function.
> >...
>
> Dave,
>
> Without commenting on any other aspect of your note (or this
> debate), I think it is worth noting that, to most active players
> in the political/governmental arena, the phrase "explicit public
> oversight function" sounds exactly like, and has exactly the
> same semantics as, "permanent government regulation".
>
> Regulatory bodies like the FCC and their counterparts in other
> countries exist to provide and facilitate what, in governmental
> models, is "public oversight".
>
> Be careful what you ask for, especially as an "official PAB
> position".
>
> john
Yes, it has become clear that this confusion exists, and I agree, we
do need to word that differently.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html