Re: Problems with section 5

[Aveek Datta <MoNoLiTH+@CMU.EDU>]

Excerpts from internet.listserv.iahc-discuss: 22-Dec-96 Problems with
section 5 by Kent Crispin@songbird.co 
> Of course, having the registrars be largely self-policing and
> self-governing is a highly desirable objective.  However, as CORE is 
> currently described, it is an organization with broad powers, little 
> oversight, and the collective economic interest of the registrars as 
> an unavoidable implicit primary objective.

Though I still have to comb through the proposal with a fine tooth comb,
I do agree that it seems that CORE is given runaway powers the likes of
the Internic's current powers. The registries can form their own
association to make sure things work between them, but the overseeing
body should be people not running registries but on the other hand
competent and understanding of the issues involved. This new body could
easily be composed of both paid watchdogs and volunteer ones, since not
everyone out there it out to make a buck on this whole thing. To
institute checks and balances we need a body comprised of people with no
interest in a specific registrar but onyl interest inthe issues involved.

Personally I can think of several people on this list who would be good,
at least as voluntary members. An open application process possibly
overseen by IAHC to create a dozen member board, who can then solicit
advise from as many advisors as they want, would seem to work well.

Just my .02

 Aveek Datta           _ _ _   _                Email: aveek@andrew.cmu.edu
    _ __  ___ _ _  ___| (_) |_| |_     |W|   HomePage:         datta.ml.org
  _| '  \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | |  _| ' \ _  |E|    FreeDNS:           www.ml.org
 (_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B|       Work:      www.itc.cmu.edu
   Please do not CC: mailing list messages/responses to me through email.