--------------14A661201E9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Whomever this may concern,
The following is a brief outline of your RFC-1 request submitted
by me, Jeffret A. Williams and IEG. INC. respectively.
See attached.
Respective 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--------------14A661201E9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="POCREP.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline; filename="POCREP.TXT"
GTLD-MOU POLICY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE =
NOTICE-97-01 =
ACTION: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS =
ANNOUNCEMENT DATE: September 13, 1997 =
CLOSING DATE: October 13, 1997 =
SUBJECT: Review of Representation of Constituencies in the gTLD-MoU Polic= y =
Oversight Committee =
ADDRESSES: Electronic comments should be sent to notice-97-01@gtld-mou.or= g. =
Comments submitted can be in ASCII, Microsoft Word, WordPerfect or HTML. =
Comments related to this request for comments can be found at =
http://www.gtld-mou.org/notice-97-01/. Written comments or comments =
submitted on diskette can be sent to: =
gTLD-MoU/Notice-97-01 =
ITU =
Place des Nations =
1211 Geneva 20 =
Switzerland =
If further information is required on this notice, please contact =
We solicit suggestions from the public regarding:
* Internet DNS stakeholder interests that are under-represented in the =
gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee =
* an appropriate procedure for nominating representatives; =
* an appropriate procedure for selecting the representative from each =
class; =
* the length of term each representative should serve; =
* mandatory term limits, if any; =
* whether representatives should be selected from groups within a class =
(e.g. trade associations) or directly from the members of that class; =
* other considerations. =
=
B. QUESTIONS: =
1. How many people do you think can constitute a functioning Policy =
Oversight Committee? =
[1-5 __] [5-10 __] [10-15 __] [15-20 __] [20-30 __] [Other 50] =
2. Which interest classes require representation in the gTLD-MoU Policy =
Oversight Committee?
End-Users [yes x_] [no__] =
Internet Service Providers [yes x_] [no__] =
Telecommunications Companies [yes_x] [no__] =
Public Interest Groups [yes_x] [no__] =
Business and Advertising Interests [yes x] [no__] =
Content Providers [yes_x] [no__] =
Internet Technical Infrastructure Interests [yes_x ] [no__] =
Software Suppliers [yes_x] [no__] =
Trademark Community/Law [yes__] [no_x] =
Intergovernmental Interests [yes_x] [no__] =
Domain Name Registrars [yes x_] [no__] =
Other (please specify, providing a short justification of this =
constituency to be represented in DNS-oversight matters) =
Educational Institutions [yes x ]
Educational institutions are and have been a intragal part of the Internet from the beginning. This should be extended downwards to at least High School level however. Their input to how DNS structure needs representation with regard to =
possible addition of new gTLD's that are related to educational areas of study. Examples would .SCI =3D Science (General).
3. Which of the listed interest classes above do you think are =
under-represented in the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee? =
End-Users _x =
Internet Service Providers _x =
Telecommunications Companies _x Public Interest Groups _x_ =
Business and Advertising Interests _x_ =
Content Providers ___ =
Internet Technical Infrastructure Interests _x_ =
Software Suppliers _x_ =
Trademark/Legal ___ =
Intergovernmental Interests ___ =
Domain Name Registrars ___ =
Other (please specify) Educational institutions x
4. For each of the interests classes you have indicated as under-represen= ted 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? =
Neither. They should be selected or invited specifically to join irrespective of class or associations that may represent =
part of that class. All representatives should be heavily encouraged to join without signing the MoU itself, as to be free and open to changing it's structure or policies to the =
point where they (Representatives) become comfortable with =
its standards and policies. Yet they should be able to freely have a real voice in the MoU's process of becoming a real contract with the Internet community. =
=
=
=
What is the appropriate procedure for nominating representatives for each of the classes that you have indicated are under-represented?
They should be nominated per se. They should be elected by the Internet community as a whole by vote from the www.gtld-mou.org site, through the use of tha site to present themselves and their qualifications or reasons to become POC members. No hard and fast qualifications should be put in place other than their identity and their resume stating what representative group they stand for election. =
=
=
=
=
What is the appropriate procedure for selecting representative for =
each of the classes that you have indicated are under-represented? =
They should not be selected at all. Each person whomever they are, should be able to submit their name resume and or other documents that they feel may be pertenant to their qualifications. =
=
=
=
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.
There should be a two term limit. Each term should be no longer than two years for each POC representative. =
=
5. Please discuss below any other considerations vis-=E0-vis the structur= e =
of the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee not covered in this questionnaire.
There should be no veto power from within or without the POC by any group or individual group or class. All decisions should be by majority vote only. =
not mentioned in questionnaire is the position of PAB as it relates to POC. The following are some recommendations in PAB's role with respect to POC.
PAB should be the alternate body of groups or classes to be representative of the Internet Community.
PAB should be a voting body with similar if not the same powers as POC.
PAB should act as a check and balance body on POC.
POC should be able to override PABs decisions, and than PAB should than be able to revote on that override with a 2/3 majority and pass back the decision back to POC for =
consideration. Poc should than vote with that override decision from PAB in mind. Amendments to any decision that POC asks should be allowed on a one time basis from PAB. Each amendment will be voted on by POC on the whole Decision or proposal, not on just the amendment. POC should not be allowed amendments on any perposal. This should be the exclusive power of PAB. =
=
=
--------------14A661201E9--