From owner-gtld-discuss@imc.org Thu Sep 18 13:44:24 1997
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:07:59 +0100 (BST)
From: Jim Dixon <jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net>
To: andi payn <payn@null.net>
cc: gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org
Subject: addendum to the gTLD MOU
In-Reply-To: <199709181740.NAA19860@ren.globecomm.net>
Precedence: bulk
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, andi payn wrote:
> If we can indeed join PAB by signing the MoU with written objections (and
> especially if doing so makes it not a valid contract), the best thing we can
> all do for the process is to do so, then see if we can work within the
> PAB--alongside the reformers who are already there--to try to fix as much as
> possible.
There is some risk in this approach: if there is a steady rise in the
number of signatories, then the -- dunno what to call them -- people
currently controlling the process will claim a rising level of support,
even though their majority (if any ;-) is steadily falling.
So ideally what you do is get the largest possible block of people to
join at the same time, all with the same objections. This is of course
asking for a miraculous level of cooperation. So ask for an even
greater miracle: ask that enough join at one time to completely shift
the majority. To guarantee this, should there be N signatories at this
time, you would need to have N+1 new signatories to the gTLD MOU.
> If we get a reform-minded majority in the PAB, there are only two
> possible outcomes. Either iPOC/POC implements all or most of the reforms we
> want, or they prove once and for all that they have no interest in listening
> to the concerns of the Internet community, even as represented by their own
> advisory board.
Anyone care to work on a standard addendum to the gTLD MOU, one which
would enable a few hundred more organizations to sign it?
--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117
929 1316
-----------------------------------hobbies---------------------------------
Member of Council President
Internet Services Providers Association
EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2
503 2265
Jim spent the next few days in messages trying to come up with a
general purpose addendum to the MoU that would implement such a
takeover. However, it's clear from reading these following messages
that Jim was primarily just amusing himself -- PAB at that time had
very little power, and a takeover, while amusing, wouldn't accomplish
very much.
In the meantime, however, POC was developing a plan that would have
PAB electing half of the POC membership. Bob Shaw circulated notice
of a request for comments on this proposal, and Jim became aware of
it. The prize for a takeover of PAB was much larger -- it could lead
to multiple membership on the POC, for Jim and several supporters.
On Friday, Jan 30, 1998, Jim sent the following message, directly to
Robert Shaw, with cc's to poc-submit, and cc's to the closed
"members@euroispa.org" list. It was forwarded to me by POC:
>Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:27:50 +0000 (GMT)
>From: Jim Dixon
>Subject: Re: EuroISPA Information
>Sender: owner-poc@ties.itu.ch
>To: Robert Shaw
>Cc: poc-submit@gtld-mou.org
>X-Authentication-warning: ties.itu.ch: majordomo set sender to
> owner-poc@gtld-mou.org using -f
>
>CC: members@euroispa.org
>
>On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Robert Shaw wrote:
>
>> This is information for members of EuroISPA which I hope you can forward on.
>
>I have forwarded this on to our member associations.
>
>As you know, EuroISPA is an association of trade associations representing
>something between 500 and 1000 European ISPs. We currently have members
>in nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany,
>Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These in turn
>have a customer base measured in the millions.
>
>We would prefer that our member associations be allowed to be able to sign
>on behalf of their members, possibly with a list of those members who
>choose not to sign. This would allow ISPA UK, for example, to sign on
>behalf of its 83 or so members and appoint one spokesman who would be
>explicitly recognised as the representative of that many signatories.
>The alternative, in which EuroISPA signs the gTLD MOU on behalf of its
>hundreds of ISPs and millions of customers and has one vote in the PAB,
>is generally seen as unacceptable by our members.
>
>I have spoken to other trade associations who have similar views.
>
>> As you may know, POC has proposed in a request for comments that closes
January 31, 1998
>> (see http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/notice-97-04.html) that PAB elect half of the voting
>> members of POC during an interim period of 18 months. After that, the
POC can structure
>> itself with PAB input as it sees fit.
>>
>> We plan a revision of the gTLD-MoU in 1998 and welcome EuroISPA signatories in
>> drafting this revision.
>
>We would prefer that the MOU be simplified down to a one page document
>which is nothing more than a statement of principles. While it might
>seem desirable to consider such a change over a period of months, we
>believe that it would be very desirable to publish a revised MOU no
>later than a week before the end of the consultation period to follow
>today's publication of the US government's green paper on the domain
>name system, that is, by around 25 February.
>
>--
>Jim Dixon Managing Director
>VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117
929 1316
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Member of Council President
>Internet Services Providers Association
EuroISPA EEIG
>http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
>tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2
503 22 65
>
>
The proposal Jim makes isn't clear -- at one point he describes
signing for ISPA UK and getting possibly 83 votes; another time he
talks of signing for EuroISPA, on behalf of its "hundreds of ISPs" and
presumably getting hundreds of votes as a result.
[Later Jim claimed that he never suggested signing for EuroISPA.] In
either case, Jim was describing an agreement that would give him
control of a huge block of votes in PAB -- there were, as I recall,
about 180 members onthe PAB mailing list then, and about half
participated in votes.
I sent a reply to Jim, describing the PAB voting policy of one person
one vote:
<http://songbird.com/pab/mail199802/0010.html>. Jim
replied in
<http://songbird.com/pab/mail199802/0011.html>
This provoked considerable discussion in PAB. All the associated
mail items can be seen under the subject "Representation on PAB"
in the Februrary archive:
<http://songbird.com/pab/mail199802/>.
Jim claims that this was not a takeover attempt -- it was merely
an attempt to change the PAB voting rules to give him as a single
person a majority vote. Most people would call that a takeover
attempt.