Re: The Price Of Admission. Unacceptable.

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

Kent and all,

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 17, 1997 at 08:45:21AM +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > > > (hopefully with principle f fixed), but others don't want the change. If
> > > > this change does happen, then several hundred people could join PAB and
> > > > demand a fundamental change in policy, without having signed the MoU.
> > >
> > > This is, in my opinion, a waste of time.  You can sign the MoU with a
> > > caveat that you have problems with section f, and the rest of it is
> > > really pretty vanilla.
> >
> > The vanilla has some interesting bits, such as
> >
> > *     a permanent role for the ITU, WIPO, and INTA
> > *     a permanent role and second vote for the "depository of
> >       the MOU" .... hmmm, that's the ITU again!
> 
> WIPO, ITU, INTA: 4 representatives, total.
> IANA, ISOC, IAB, CORE: 8 representatives.

  Out of how many?
> 
> It has been pretty much decided that PAB should have voting
> representation on the POC -- right now there are two observers who
> participate fully, but they can't become voting members without
> ammending the MoU (which will be done)

  Well this is very positive step.  Good to know.  Thanks!  >;)
> 
> > *     but no representation at all for ISPs, without whose
> >       networks there would be no Internet
> 
> Given the Nominet experience, it seems likely that the 2 voting
> representatives of CORE will represent ISP interests to some extent.

  Only two!  Hummmm?  This sems a bit short to me.
> 
> There has been extensive discussion in PAB and in POC about adding 1
> or more representatives from ISPs.  The main problem has been deciding
> a means of selecting representatives, but this will be resolved, and
> getting more direct ISP representation will probably happen fairly
> quickly.

  Will the method of selecting ISP representitives be posted
or the gTLD-MoU site?
> 
> Changing the representation structure is one of the highest
> priorities of POC, I believe, second only to getting CORE off the
> ground.

  It should be.  And really I believe that this priority is 
reversed as far as improtance.
> 
> In any case, it is a pure fantasy to claim that the POC is in thrall
> to "trademark interests".

  I agree to an extent.  But the language or the MoU sure seems
to reflect this.  >;)
> 
> --
> Kent Crispin                            "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

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