Re: PAB Re: The "Statement of Principles"

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

Kent and all,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 01:19:21PM -0400, Bob Helfant wrote:
> > I find the part about IANA currently having control over all TLDs a little
> > out of line.
>
> OK.  I'm not going to change it, though -- I think it's basically a
> semantic issue about what you mean by "control":  a bank president
> controls the opening of the vault, except when a robber holds a gun
> to his head.

  This is not a good rational not to make a change to any document of this
nature.  There really are no semantics involved here.  The very language
or this "Statement of Principals" is a falsehood in word and statement
presently, and must be radically changed as I indicated on my first
reply to you posting of it as Bob has pointed out as well.

>
>
> > I have signed the orginal MoU and didn't have to agree to
> > that statement.
>
> As I hope I made clear, signing this paper explicitly has no legally
> binding implications.  So you can sign this one without having to
> worry that there may be some clause that you don't agree with.

  Not good enough, I believe that is the point that Bob H. is pointing out.

>
>
>   It is clearly not true, or CORE would have its 7 TLDs in
> > the root by now.  Are you really asking people to sign this or are you
> > looking for concencus and/or suggestions to release this statement as an
> > MoU lite?
>
> I am not looking for people to sign it yet -- we need to set up a mechanism
> for that, anyway.  At this point I would like to get consensus from
> PAB that this is an adequate document to proceed with.

  Well I hope that it isn't.  But I suppose that will be PAB's decision.  It
they
do agree than much of the roadblock concerns that have been posted for
more than a year now as to the structure of the parts of the MoU, namely
POC/PAB/CORE are flawed and stand starkly in the face of openness
to the MoU process an disallow for real input to your process.

>
>
> Please also bear in mind the following VERY IMPORTANT FACT:
>
>   Since this document is explicitly non-binding we can adjust
>   it later.

  Why not adjust it now?  Why later?  Never put off what you can do today
until tomorrow, for tomorrow may never come.

>
>
> Why, then, have a document at all?  Because PAB *does vote*, and we
> want to have some kind of membership mechanism that gives us a way to
> check the bona fides of the signatories.  We don't want 300 AOL email
> addresses to show up on day one.

  Why not have 300 AOL E-Mail addresses show up to sign in one day if
they are Internet users or stakeholders.  Or is you aim to exclude the internet
community at large and the stakeholders to membership to PAB, or POC
for that matter.

>
>
> This matter of the vote is very important -- PAB will nominate and
> vote on POC members, and thus we do have a concern about election
> fraud.

  I don't see any concern in a fraudulent voting concern.  Please elaborate
exactly where this concern manifests itself?

>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair                 "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/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com