On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:21:44 +0200 you said:
Great - a force that has zero control over the whole IAHC "process". Static electricity. We can not become part of the PAB because we can not sign the gTLD-MoU. It is an overly bureaucratic, flawed document that in the end solves very little, hinders free enterprise and gives ISOC and IANA power of attorney over the gTLD part of the Internet.
I hate to break it to you, but IANA now holds 100% control of the gTLDs as well as the nTLDs. They have done a terrfific job until now without committee intervention. The gTLD process is perhaps the start of reducing IANA's control over gTLDs/nTLDs, etc. This would have to be an evolutionary process, one where POC and PAB prove that they have enough common sense and legal status to do what needs to be done. I certainly wouldn't try to cut IANA or ISOC out of this at the first round.
And it doesn't even touch on the biggest related problem we have, which is what happens to the "." and who controls it. You ought not to architect an office building before making sure the foundation can be laid on a stable surface.
The gTLD MoU and all related items do not cover "." or nTLDs. Here is where RIPE and other organizations can step in and propose what should be done (at least one view - there are many). The IAHC/POC was not mandated to touch ".".
This would of course only give you membership in the PAB, a powerless body whose role is simply to give advice. The price for this is your signature, which will be used as evidence of your support for the entire gTLD MOU process.
If they are powerless, how did they get 2 PAB members assigned to be observers to the iPOC? If the 150 members of PAB say something as one voice - it is listened to and acted upon.
Which means nothing since 150 PAB members will likely never say anything "as one voice". More importantly, the PAB has no legally defined control over the iPOC or CORE. Whether they are listened to or not is at the whim of whoever happens to be in the iPOC. The same is true with the iPOC wrt CORE, as well as all of the above in regards to the ISOC and IANA.
PAB has voted and majority rules. For me that is one voice.
The gTLD-MoU has gone out of its way to create a lot of new acronyms with the semblance of a logical government, but with no definition of control or checks and balances. Personally, I think the initial framework outlined by Network Solutions in:
http://www.netsol.com/papers/internet.html
makes a lot more sense for the future and stability of the Internet as well as the TLD issue. It's a more reasonable starting place.
Hmmm. Jim Dixon says not to create any more gTLDs and you are in favor of the NSI solution, which means limitless gTLDs - each competing with the other - competing monopolies. Jim seems to be saying that this is a US problem and it would appear that NSI's solution does not take into account non-USA interests. It would appear more to be in NSI's interest that it remain in control of com/net/org and let the new gTLDs fight for market recognition that NSI already has. How does that foster European interests? If I were a European - I would think to be against the NSI proposal. Please explain how the NSI solution is "good" for Europe. -Hank
Cheers, Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/
-------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 15:50:33 MET DST 1997 ---------