POC membership [was : Re: The Price of Admission is...]

[Amadeu Abril i Abril <pab@fcr.es>]

> On Wed, Sep 17, 1997 at 09:50:40AM +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > > WIPO, ITU, INTA: 4 representatives, total.
> > > IANA, ISOC, IAB, CORE: 8 representatives.
> >
> >   Out of how many?
>
> That's it, at this point.  12.

Slow down. At his point WIPO, ITU and AINTA have three seat (one each) ITU has
not yet appointed its second seat (as a Depository).

CORE is not yet there. But there are two PAB-elected Obvservers. I'm one of
them, Javier Sola being the other. We are not full members as this will need a
MoU amendment (that will be done more or less soon). But the only real
difference is that we cannot vote. We have voice but no vote. Imosrtant?
Perhaps, but I have not witnessed a single formal vote since I joined iPOC works
by the end of July. We woek on...hummm...a consenus basis. The other differences
only affect my ego, as, for instance, I feel less qulified than any other member
to speak on iPOC's behalf..... ;-)

> > > 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?

Not aonly that, Jeff. As for the whole process YOU are asked what your preferred
mix would be. Last Saturday iPOC issued a Request for Comments (or whatever you
want to call it) asking YOU (yes, you too, Jeff) ideas about iPOC compostion.
Please note that we don't only ask for "how many ISP reps should be there" of
"how many Canadians" (or Catalans, for that matter) but rahter ask your views
on:

* waht constituencies/interest classes/stakeholders should be represented in
iPOC
* How the reps of your preferred classes shpuld be nominated
* How should they be elected.

See http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/rfcs.html#97-01

Your move. Indeed, YOU (no individual you) can decide. This is iPOC task, after
consultation with PAB. But you may influence.

Amadeu, the only guy in domian-nameland whose English is worse than Jeff's. With
the possible exception of Sascha ;-))

PS: I had many reservations regarding a myriad of things when joining PAB. I had
many satisfactions: the lottery being dropped; the registrars' number being not
limited; the applocation period being expanded; the apprication requirements
being lowered; PAB having a voice and weight on iPOC. Not all of them to my
complete satifaction. But I'm not the only player. None of them because of my
personal charm, but through collective discussion and consensus. It does not
always work. It does not always work in the direction I'd like. But it
definitely works.

>
>
> --
> 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

 That's it, at this point.  12.

> > 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?

Of course -- any such changes would be an amendment to the MoU.