Re: PAB Opens Mailing List

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

At 10:24 PM 5/23/98 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sun, May 24, 1998 at 12:38:32AM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>> >> Apparently the PAB now has an readable
>> >> archive of their mailing list. Only the recent
>> >> entries are included.
>> >
>> >The PAB voted to open the list archive as of Jan 1.  This is
>> >relatively old news -- 
>> 
>> This might be old news to you, but it certainly is new
>> news to me.  More importantly, making a list archive 
>> readable is not the same thing as making a mailing list 
>> open.
>> 
>> One of the reason's that the Internet community desires
>> open and transparent processes is so that all sides in a 
>> controversy may have an equal opportunity to state their
>> position.  In other words, you are more likely to hear 
>> opposing points of view on an *open* list.
>
>Indeed.  That is why gtld-discuss exists.  The PAB list is for PAB to 
>conduct its business, and is the means by which PAB votes.


I fail to see why one precludes the other . . .

I am reminded of the history of C-SPAN.  C-SPAN began 
cablecasting the U.S. House of Representatives on March 19, 
1979.  The Senate, however, resisted broadcasting their 
proceedings for over seven years.  

As I remember it, the Senators were concerned that it would
impact their abilities to do what Senators do if the people
they *represented* could see them doing it :-)

To make a long story short, on June 2, 1986 the Senate 
finally allowed their proceedings to be televised.  No 
major disruptions occurred, and in fact, many suggest 
that we now have better government because of it.

What concerns me about your statement is the implication
that because business and voting occur on a list, people 
who are interested in its proceedings should be excluded.
And just like the Senators quickly realized, I believe 
these restrictions are unfounded.  

With the pending release of the White Paper, we will 
hopefully have some answers to the following questions 
on Internet governance:
  -  who will have authority for what.
  -  what legal jurisdiction(s) will be used to resolve 
     conflicts.  
  -  what coordinated functions will be managed for the 
     public good.

IMHO, those functions that are being managed for the public 
good *MUST* have open processes.  Unfortunately, we seem to 
be moving in the opposite direction.

Over the last couple of days, we have seen some of the
organizations that currently manage Internet resources 
take actions to quiet dissenting voices on their lists.   

While there may be occassions where this is warranted, I do 
object to the lack of due process that was used.  Without a set 
of list standards <like http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/rules/>,
any actions taken against any individual may be considered 
arbitrary and biased, and potentially unfair.

In closing, if PAB really wants to evolve to become the Policy 
Advisory Board to the new Name Council (if that should come to 
pass), I suggest that it become more inclusive with a more open 
list.  

Given the technical skills available in this community, there 
is no reason why we can't use Internet techonology to provide 
for a free and open flow of information.  Let's work together 
to make *Internet* governance the *best* governance the world 
has ever known.


Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com