B. QUESTIONS:
1. How many people do you think can constitute a functioning Policy Oversight
Committee?
Answer: 15-20
Comments:
A smaller committee would be easier to manage and quicker in
getting to a decision; a larger committee would accommodate a
broader constituent base, and thus be able to get stronger
support in implementing their decision.
As the purpose of POC should be to handle the overall policy, not
to control the daily business of the registrars, I feel that the
latter issue is of the greater importance here.
2. Which interest classes require representation in the gTLD-MoU Policy
Oversight Committee?
End-Users: yes
Internet Service Providers: no
Telecommunications Companies: no
Public Interest Groups: yes
Business and Advertising Interests: no
Content Providers: yes
Internet Technical Infrastructure Interests: yes
Software Suppliers: no
Trademark Community/Law: no
Intergovernmental Interests: yes
Domain Name Registrars: yes
Note: Domain Name Registrars should include not only the CORE members,
but also existing operational and experimental registrars,
ISO-domain registrars, and operators of public second or third
level registries like ml.org.
Comment:
My proposal is that only those who are directly affected by the
declared policies should be represented on the committee; users
and providers. ISPs, Telcos, Business and Advertising interests,
or software suppliers do not need any extra representation than
what they get from also being in the other groups. The committee
should naturally be allowed to use professional counsel on legal
issues, but the trademark and legal communities should not in
themselves be represented on the committee.
Intergovernmental and Public Interests should be on the committee
only as support and broadening of the constituent base, they should
NOT be given special powers or veto rights.
End Users, Content Providers and Domain Name Registrars should
constitute the majority of the committee.
3. Which of the listed interest classes above do you think are under-
represented in the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee?
Answer: End-Users, Public Interest Groups, Content Providers,
and Domain Name Registrars.
Comment:
See note above re: Domain Name Registrars.
4. For each of the interests classes you have indicated as under-represented
in the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee:
Should each representative be selected from groups within a class
(e.g., trade or other associations) or directly from members
of that class?
Answer: Direct selection should be given first consideration; in those
cases where this is not immediately possible, representation
groups within the class should be used until direct selection
can be arranged.
What is the appropriate procedure for nominating representative for each of
the classes that you have indicated are under-represented?
End Users, Content Providers:
Public nominations, 100 (say) nominations needed.
Public Interest Groups:
POC decides what groups are eligible to nominate one candidate each.
Domain Name Registrars:
Each registrar may nominate one candidate.
What is the appropriate procedure for selecting representative for each of
the classes that you have indicated are under-represented?
End Users, Content Providers:
Self-selection (voting) among the nominees.
Public Interest Groups
Voting among the eligible groups.
Domain Name Registrars:
Voting among the registrars.
What is the length of term each representative should serve for each of the
classes that you have indicated are under-represented? If desired, please
include suggested mandatory term limits.
Answer: All representatives should serve three (3) years, and after that
be excluded from serving on the committee again.
5. Please discuss below any other considerations vis-`-vis the structure of the gTLD-
MoU Policy Oversight Committee not covered in this questionnaire.
Comment:
POC should be limited to formulating overall policy, and not
be involved in the operational issues like selection of domain
names or (dis)qualification of registrars.
/Paul