Re: Short Sighted and Unauthoritive

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Andi,

andi payn wrote:
> 
> >>>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.

  I think you mean COMMEND, not comment here, but none the less I 
aslo feel the same way.  My concern and problem is it could easly
be so much better NOW rather than later.  I am not sure we have
time for LATER, as the drafters ans supporters of the MoU seem
to believe and have stated on several occasions.  In addition,
their Fee of $10k is to high, and centralized control of 
gTLD's will never happen or be excepted WORLD WIDE.
> 
> 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.

  It is the drafters and major players of the MoU that do most of the
bashing, so if they get it in return, now one should be suprised.  But
I also must say, that bashing does not solve anything.  It just makes
it harder to get on with comming up with a good compermise.
> 
> 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.

  I wonder.

Regards,

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com