...

...

If you measure things in Internet terms, by looking at host counts, for example, Europe represents something like 25% of the Internet. From this point of view, two seats are insufficient.

Of course, if you look at things from a functional point of view, the Internet itself is seriously under-represented on the iPOC.

Also, if you look at the participating members of the PAB it starts to become a joke. The totally unrepresentative PAB which has no power but recommends to the [i]POC which is unrepresentative and has no power but recommends to the some day CORE which is supposed to have power but doesn't because according to the gTLD-MoU the ISOC and IANA have veto power over everything. Neat, huh?

And if everyone in RIPE joined the PAB, you would become a controlling force rather than what you refer to as "a joke".

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. 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. ...

...

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. 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. Cheers, Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/ -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 15:03:22 MET DST 1997 ---------