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

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

Amadeu and all,

  PLEASE CONSIDER THESE COMMENTS MY/OUR OFFICIAL RESPONSE.

Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
> 
> > 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).

  I have no problem with the ITU being represented.  I do with WIPO.
Not necessary and counter productive in as much as the DNS structure
doesn't need their input spicificaly. 

  So what about other industry sectors?  Software, Commercial buisness,
education, Small communities, ect...  I don't see it.  How come?
> 
> 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..... ;-)

  If the 2 PAB members have no vote, they have no real influence.  
> 
> > > > 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:

  And I have submitted many comments through this very list as has been
harped on by several POC members as the "Public Forum" for the gTLD-MoU
process.  So consider these comments as part of that response.  >;)
> 
> * waht constituencies/interest classes/stakeholders should be represented in
> iPOC

  Any and all users are constituencies.  There are 3 to 4 classes.  They
are Domain name holders, General users(those whom have an E-Mail
address),
other commercial, and educational.
 
> * How the reps of your preferred classes shpuld be nominated

  They should be elected not nominated from their industry class or
group.

> * How should they be elected.

  In a general election on the gTLD-MoU site.
> 
> 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.

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

  My english is bad?  Really?  Hummmmm?
> 
> 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.

  Lets hope so.
> 
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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.

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