Re: Official PAB position on competing registry administration

John C Klensin (
Sun, 01 Mar 1998 15:04:35 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 13:49:37 +0200 Amadeu Abril i Abril
<> wrote:

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

As you have pointed out elsewhere, what it is "independent" of
is CORE. It is not "independent" of the gTLD-MOU or a whole
series of assumptions about the Internet and its operation, nor
is it "independent" of the PAB (and it may be becoming less so).

I don't see anything wrong with that, but I would encourage you,
Dave, and anyone else trying to formulate an "official PAB
position" to remember that every semantics-laden self-
descriptive term in such a statement is a target for those who
would like to undermine the impact of the substance the
statement by pointing out that its premisses are debatable.

In other words, consider the gains from putting in "independent"
(or any of the words I suggested) against the risks of having
the impact of the whole statement diluted when someone focuses
the discussion on whether or not that term was appropriate.