Re: PAB Proposal for support of IANA.

[Javier SOLA <jsola@aui.es>]

Kent,

Excellent. 

Javier

At 07:57 30/08/98 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 30, 1998 at 02:39:02PM +0000, Javier SOLA wrote:
>> 
>> PAB,
>> 
>> Here is a proposal for supporting IANA. Please comment on it very quickly
>> (language and spelling included), as it needs to be sent almost
immediately.
>> 
>> Javier
>
>Javier,
>
>Thanks for writing this!
>
>I have also been working on a PAB endorsement, and I have recieved a
>couple of comments that I have been incorporating.  If you don't mind, I 
>will incorporate your comments in the work I have done so far, and post the 
>results in about 12 hours.  Is that OK with you?
>
>> 
>> The Policy Advisory Body (PAB), created by the signature of the Generic Top
>> Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding and now including more than 200
>> companies and associations from all around the world, would like to comment
>> on the Third Iteration of the Bylaws for the New IANA published by IANA.
>> 
>> The IFWP process, has, for the last two months, brought together a
>> significant number of stakeholders of the Internet from around the world.
>> The participants do not represent, by far, the whole of the Community of
>> Internet Users, but their participation has permitted discussing some of
>> the most important issues regarding the re-engineering of IANA.
>> 
>> As Tamar Frankel -leader of the IFWP- demanded, consensus search has been
>> carried out in small break-out sessions, not in the plenary sessions of
>> this meetings, so that we could talk about work-in-progress, and not
>> consensus of the Internet Community, which would have been false.
>> 
>> In spite of this, many of the results of the IFWP seem to reflect clear
>> consensus of the Internet Community, and -we believe- have been correctly
>> understood by IANA and incorporated in the Third Iteration of the Bylaws.
>> 
>> In some other issues, the Consensus is not that clear. One of them is the
>> type of membership that this organisation will have, a key issue, as any
>> non-profit corporation must have members. Almost everybody seems to agree
>> that membership organisations should participate in the New IANA as
>> members. We support this view. There are opinions in the sense that
>> "anybody" could become a member, but this opens the organisation to
>> "capture" by a powerful company with many customers, specially if voting
>> through proxies is allowed. The model developed for PAB, which seems to
>> work quite well, does not allow individual members, and we think it could
>> be applied to the New IANA. The participation of specific companies should
>> be analysed very carefully, specially if members are a primary source of
>> financial stability for the New IANA. None of the funds received by the
>> organisation may have any strings attached, nor the possibility of
>> attaching them later.
>> 
>> We encourage IANA to continue with their work towards re-engineering its
>> structures to fit into a non-profit organisation that will -in a fair way-
>> regulate and manage the common resources of the Internet.
>> 
>> Javier
>
>-- 
>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
>
>