Re: PAB Should we speak?

["bsemich" <bsemich@users.org>]

Hello;

Sorry I have not had a chance to report on the IFWP meetings which I
attended last week - I am still in "catch up" mode in "real life" as it
were.

FYI, though, and especially in reference to comments about CORE and POC
participation, both Ken Stubbs, chairman of the CORE executive committee
and Roberto Gaetano, CORE designee to POC, participated in the IFWP
sessions last week along with myself and Antony Van Couvering, both PAB
members. So we already have *some* participation (albeit in Antony's and
my case, not officially representing PAB), for what it's worth.

As far as I understand it, Roberto and Ken will also be attending the
sessions in Geneva (as will Antony and I, representing our respective
businesses). There was also a person representing Jon Postel/IANA at the
meeting about the possible make up and structure of the new board and
councils (names council, address/IP council, and standards council).

As an aside, one of the issues I pushed for and which was eventually
agreed upon during the "unaninmous equals consensus" final session on
the structure of the organization was to be sure it would become a
"membership" organization who's members appoint/elect/whatever the
board. From my perspective, having an open membership procedure may cure
a lot of potential ills - and create others, I'm sure. <smile>

I don't for a minute claim to know if the IFWP process or it's
recomendations will eventually become the final mechanism that will
create the entity described in the White paper.

But I beleive if certain basic tenants are put forward in all the forums
- open participation, minimal barriers to entry, maximum competition, a
governing structure more along the lines of the IETF than along that of
the US Postal Service - combined with a commitment to continuity and
stability for the current systems in place - we will be in a pretty good
place down the road.


Regards,

Bill Semich
bsemich@users.org
www.users.org



In reply to 4 Jul message from Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>:

>Folks, I have forwarded some messages to the PAB list expressing 
>concerns about the "IFWP process".  Those are my personal 
>expressions, of course, and are not meant to express the sentiment
>of PAB.

>But I am curious to know what the sentiment of PAB is.  The Green 
>Paper and the White Paper have effectively blocked the MoU from 
>progressing, and, as has been expressed several times, we are
>thrown back in time a year and a half.  Probably within the next
>six months a new IANA will be formed, and then a "names council"
>(Jon Postel's term), and then at some point some new TLDs will be
>added.  This new structure will almost certainly incorporate
>elements of the the MoU, since the MoU basically covered a lot of
>the ground pretty well. 

>PAB is the body that most directly represents the 200 odd
>signatories of the MoU -- POC and CORE cannot make that claim --
>and an official PAB position potentially carries significant
>weight. 

>The question:  is there an interest in PAB in forming a position
>on the matter of the "new IANA"?  A collective PAB position could
>be very influential: the list of MoU signatories is an impressive
>list. 

>I honestly have no particular ax to grind in this matter -- I
>will, as always, express my personal opinions in various places. 
>But I think the collective voice of those who have supported the
>MoU should have an opportunity to be heard, if it wishes to speak.

>Comments, please.

>-- 
>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

Bill Semich
President and General Manager
The .NU Domain Ltd
bsemich@mail.nu
http://www.nunames.nu
".NU - The un.com(mon) domain"