Dear Kent
I have read your messages and am in agreement with them.
>
> But I am curious to know what the sentiment of PAB is. The Green
> Paper and the White Paper have effectively blocked the MoU from
> progressing, and, as has been expressed several times, we are thrown
> back in time a year and a half. Probably within the next six months a
> new IANA will be formed, and then a "names council" (Jon Postel's
> term), and then at some point some new TLDs will be added. This new
> structure will almost certainly incorporate elements of the the MoU,
> since the MoU basically covered a lot of the ground pretty well.
I am disappointed with what had happened and am sorry for members of
CORE(I am not working for a member of CORE nor have any interest in one)
>
> PAB is the body that most directly represents the 200 odd signatories
> of the MoU -- POC and CORE cannot make that claim -- and an official
> PAB position potentially carries significant weight.
>
> The question: is there an interest in PAB in forming a position on
> the matter of the "new IANA"? A collective PAB position could be very
> influential: the list of MoU signatories is an impressive list.
However, Life has to go on. I believe that it is important for PAB to
formulate if possible, a collective position. (at least we should
attempt to do it).
Best regards,
>
> I honestly have no particular ax to grind in this matter -- I will,
> as always, express my personal opinions in various places. But I
> think the collective voice of those who have supported the MoU should
> have an opportunity to be heard, if it wishes to speak.
>
> Comments, please.
>
> --
> 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
--
KS LIM
LOGIC GROUP OF COMPANIES
180 Cecil Street, #15-03
Bangkok Bank Building
SINGAPORE 069546
TEL:65-2211208,FAX:65-2221170
E-MAIL: ks_lim@logchina.com.sg
kslim@singnet.com.sg