Re: addendum to the gTLD MoU / Lack Of Credibility?

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

Andi and all,

andi payn wrote:
> 
> This is a reply to Jim Dixon's post "addendum to the gTLD MoU" as well as to
> Jeff Williams' "Re: Lack of Credibility?"
> 
> Me:
> >> If we can indeed join PAB by signing the MoU with written objections (and
> >> especially if doing so makes it not a valid contract), the best thing we
> can
> >> all do for the process is to do so, then see if we can work within the
> >> PAB--alongside the reformers who are already there--to try to fix as much
> as
> >> possible.
> 
> Jeff Williams:
> >  I would be willing to do this if there is anyone within the gTLD-MoU
> >folks that can legally counter sign any objections or amendments that
> >may be specified.  But to my knowledge there is no one in that
> >capacity presently.  Or is there?  If so, who?
> 
> First of all, I think that the "they" here would be IANA and ISOC, but I'm
> not sure. I suppose if you amended the MoU so that this were no longer true,
> that would be a more interesting question...

  If the 'They" is the IANA or the ISOC, than those folks should come
forward and d eclair such here and now on this list.  If not, than I
am assuming that the "They" are those in the list of "Officials" to
which Jay posted earlier.  If this too is also not true.  Than who
is a legal "Official" position within the gTLD-MoU group?  Please
advise.
> 
> If they don't legally countersign the amended MoU, then there is nothing of
> binding force between the signers and anyone else. While this means, of
> course, that we would have little or no basis for suit against anyone on the
> basis of the MoU, amended or otherwise (assuming that my guesses about Swiss
> law are at all accurate), it also means that we would not be bound by
> anything in the MoU, even those parts that we signed without objection
> (again with the same caveat). In other words, the document itself would be
> legally meaningless.

  Correct and therefore is also of little or no legitimate value in the
first place.  So what is the point.  Irrespective of that, I would never
sign anything ( my legal training showing here) of this sort or possible
magnitude on the DNS name space that has no teeth or legal redress.
> 
> Of course the fact that a large number of people had signed the amended
> document would provide moral and public-relations weight. First, the POC
> could claim additional support on the basis of these additional signers. On
> the other hand, if the number of people in PAB who had signed the amended
> document were enough to form a majority, or even a large minority, this
> faction could claim support for the amended MoU.

  True enough.  But if even this "Amended MoU" would have little or not
standing legally or ethically.  Without that, the exercise has little or
no real effect, except that the Trademark lawyers get what they want,
and the heck with the rest of the Internet community.  
> 
> More directly, of course, the new faction within PAB would be able to make
> suggestions that POC could not blithely ignore, as they'd be coming from
> their own official Policy Advisory Board--as I already mentioned (in the
> next paragraph).
> 
> Me:
> >> If we get a reform-minded majority in the PAB, there are only two
> >> possible outcomes. Either iPOC/POC implements all or most of the reforms
> we
> >> want, or they prove once and for all that they have no interest in
> listening
> >> to the concerns of the Internet community, even as represented by their
> own
> >> advisory board.
> 
> Jeff Williams:
> >  There is a third.  That being that PAB will be disbanded by POC, and
> >given only an advisory voice which is not binding on POC or CORE.
> 
> If PAB is disbanded, that clearly has the same effect as if POC simply
> ignores PAB, if not greater--it will be a clear demonstration that they do
> not wish to listen to the concerns of the Internet community, even those who
> participate on the MoU's own terms (by joining PAB). Similarly, if PAB's
> soon-to-be-approved voting representation is rescinded and PAB is reverted
> to purely an advisory voice, it doesn't make much difference. If POC
> generally follows the advise, the situation hasn't changed significantly; if
> they don't, they're giving clear evidence of ignoring the voice of the
> community.

  They are ignoring the comments form nearly any voice on this list and
the
internet press that is not in support of their agenda and the MoU as is
now.  What makes you think that joining PAB with or without signing the
MoU will change this in any way.  The egg is already all over their
face now.
> 
> I don't believe that even the current iPOC is interested in completely
> ignoring PAB, and I think that will be even less true when the first "real"
> POC is convened, however it is constituted. So far, iPOC has acted on most
> of the "official" recommendations of PAB, and sometimes even gone beyond.

  I haven't seen this myself from their own site's news section.
> 
> For example, I believe that PAB recommended giving ISPs two votes in POC, as
> well as giving PAB two votes. The immediate response from iPOC was to
> approve the two votes for PAB (although they have to change the MoU for that
> to take effect). The ISP question was a bit more difficult, because they
> weren't sure how to let the ISPs choose their representatives. Rather than
> deciding unilaterally, or asking PAB to do it, they asked the public for
> comments on what classes should be represented in POC and how each of these
> classes should elect, or otherwise select, their representatives.

  ANd this is the first wise thing I have seen POC do that gets to the
structure of the gTLD-MoU.  If they do really listen, and enact any
subsititive suggestions, they will have in effect said that the MoU
is not nearly good enough and is flawed at its very core, pardon the
pun.  I have my doubts that this will happen.  I think it is just a
ruse at present.  But I fully intend to provide a wide range of 
changes and suggestions.
> 
> I understand the suspicion engendered by the attitudes of iPOC's members of
> this and other lists, but their actions show that they are interested in
> trying to reshape their system into something which can gain public support.

  Maybe.  Time and action will tell that story.  I am a results oriented
person.  I do not lend myself to good intentions, but rather ACTION.

> I know that some will claim that this is a new attitude and it's too little,
> too late, but I think that no matter what their motivation, we can and
> should take advantage of it to help build a system that we can all support.

  I very much agree.  Nothing ventured nothing gained.

 - snip - I will let Jim respond to your comments reguarding his -

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