Re: Short Sighted and Unauthoritive

["andi payn" <payn@null.net>]

>>>If we make changes, evolving the process to be a better one based on user
>>>feedback we are considered short-sighted.  If we don't make the changes
>>>requested we are considered dictatorial.  Please try to make up your
mind.
>>
>>You can't win either way.
>>
>>The problem is not about whether changes are allowed or not.  It's about
>>the lack of forethought.
>>
>>Forethought comes fron consultation.  It's clear from the gTLD process
that
>>consultation did not take place.
>
>We received 4500 emails, and about 100 paper documents in response to our
work.

I personally think it's a good thing that they're taking and acting on
comments and evolving their proposals. From IAHC draft to gtld-MoU to
CORE-MoU (where these overlap--which is a sizeable area) there have been
notable improvements, and I comment the MoU organizations for this.

Still, there are two major problems.

First, they're doing the best they can within an inherently closed system--a
closed system that they created. The fact that the current iPOC is honestly
reading and trying to act on public comment is a good thing, but it's no
guarantee that future POCs will do the same, and in the end it's no
substitute for having an open system in the first place.

Second, the rate of improvement is far too slow. At this rate, as I've said
before, they'll have a proposal that I'll be happy with sometime in the
middle of next decade. However, they plan to have this system on line
sometime next year. The problem isn't that they're not being open now, it's
that they weren't open enough in the initial drafting of the proposal; they
seem to have gone in with preconceived notions and stuck to them. They're
fixing many of the peripheral problems as a result of public input, and
maybe they'll fix the rest of them (e.g., the protection from legal recourse
even in the case of fraud). However, some of the real problems lie in the
core principles behind the system, which they're not open to changing--and
which they really couldn't change without trashing what they have and
starting from scratch.

Of course I'd be happy if they did that, but that's another issue.

In other words, I'm happy that they've removed the lottery, geographic
requirements, and fixed total number requirements on registrars; I'm happy
that registrars are only being required to sign the CORE-MoU and not the
gtld-MoU; and I take these as a good sign that they're being reasonably open
and rational at this point. I wish people would stop bashing the MoU
organizations for making improvements like this.

Just because you disagree with their policy and the way they're conducting
themselves doesn't mean that every single thing they do is necessarily
bad...

>Can you be specific as to what rules IAHC laid down before anything got
>started?  I am not familiar with those.

The most important rules weren't really laid down by IAHC so much as by
IANA, ISOC, ITU, etc.: the composition of the IAHC was determined before the
process started. These same organizations compose the iPOC and will
apparently remain the controlling power behind the final POC, and it's hard
to believe that this decision was made because the people wanted it. A small
subset of stakeholders have created a system where they have control. Why
don't ISPs or ISP organizations, or domain name holders or domain name
holders' organizations, or Internet users or user organizations, etc. have
seats on the POC? Is it really because they didn't want representation, or
is it because the members of the IAHC decided to put themselves in charge no
matter what?

>>>>>[The views expressed above are the authors alone and may not reflect
>>>>>the view of other iPOC members]
>>>>
>>>>So Hank, how can you make such a statement if you are not speaking for
the
>>>>gTLD via the iPOC.  Or is there a mixed feeling about this limitation on
>>>>the iPOC to the point it is a stalemate between the factions?
>>>
>>>That is the standard sig I have been using for the past 10 months.  I use
it
>>>no matter what - even if there is unanimous consensus within iPOC.
>>
>>But it is not accerting any credability or authority. So why not get rid
of
>>it.  Using it for "10 months' is like putting a flashing light over your
>>head to say "Hey I'm a part of this, although i haven't a clue what it's
>>about"
>
>A sig like that is placed there so that any comment I make or don't make in
>a forum of this nature isn't construed as a policy statement from iPOC.

OK, that's fine, but when you are speaking authoritatively, can you please
somehow let us know? You don't have to do anything as elaborate as the Pope
when he wants to speak infallibly; I'm sure you can think of something
simpler.