Re: Official PAB position on competing registry administration

Amadeu Abril i Abril (
Sun, 01 Mar 1998 13:49:37 +0200

John C Klensin wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 11:27:02 -0800 Dave Crocker
> <> wrote:
> > OK. Since we know that isn't what I want, either, what language is
> > preferred?
> >
> > The POC is an example of non-governmental public oversight. Not
> > surprisingly, it is that sort of oversight that I want to suggest.
> The POC would not normally be considered "public" oversight, for
> the self-selection/ selection by a restricted community reasons
> its opponents repeatedly and stridently point out.

As for POC representativeness, we all hope to improve it with the new
composotion & selcetion rules to be approved shortly.

As to its oversight being public/private I think that we are missing an
important point: POC is basically an "independent" oversight body (or
"external" if you prefer). Most of its members (all except the two CORE
appointees, ie, Alan H and myself) have no personal interest (let alone
financial) in the operations they are supposed to oversee, nor they have been
selected by entities having those interests.

I would
> describe it as "open, private-sector, oversight", or even as
> "open, balanced-interest, private-sector...". Then you are
> likely to have to defend the truth of "open" and "balanced"
> against people who will disagree, but you will at least be
> having the discussion you intend to have.

I'd like the concept of "independnet" expclicitly added to your definition.