Re: PAB Opens Mailing List, naipr@localhost, apnic-talk@localhost

[Jay Fenello <]

Hi David,

Here is a posting about open lists, 
due process, and the public good.

FYI & FWIW.

Jay.

>Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 00:31:54 -0400
>To: Kent Crispin kent@localhost
>From: Jay Fenello Jay@localhost
>Subject: Re: PAB Opens Mailing List
>Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@localhost, pab@localhost,
>        gtld-discuss@localhost
>
>At 10:24 PM 5/23/98 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>>On Sun, May 24, 1998 at 12:38:32AM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>>> >> Apparently the PAB now has an readable
>>> >> archive of their mailing list. Only the recent
>>> >> entries are included.
>>> >
>>> >The PAB voted to open the list archive as of Jan 1.  This is
>>> >relatively old news -- 
>>> 
>>> This might be old news to you, but it certainly is new
>>> news to me.  More importantly, making a list archive 
>>> readable is not the same thing as making a mailing list 
>>> open.
>>> 
>>> One of the reason's that the Internet community desires
>>> open and transparent processes is so that all sides in a 
>>> controversy may have an equal opportunity to state their
>>> position.  In other words, you are more likely to hear 
>>> opposing points of view on an *open* list.
>>
>>Indeed.  That is why gtld-discuss exists.  The PAB list is for PAB to 
>>conduct its business, and is the means by which PAB votes.
>
>
>I fail to see why one precludes the other . . .
>
>I am reminded of the history of C-SPAN.  C-SPAN began 
>cablecasting the U.S. House of Representatives on March 19, 
>1979.  The Senate, however, resisted broadcasting their 
>proceedings for over seven years.  
>
>As I remember it, the Senators were concerned that it would
>impact their abilities to do what Senators do if the people
>they *represented* could see them doing it :-)
>
>To make a long story short, on June 2, 1986 the Senate 
>finally allowed their proceedings to be televised.  No 
>major disruptions occurred, and in fact, many suggest 
>that we now have better government because of it.
>
>What concerns me about your statement is the implication
>that because business and voting occur on a list, people 
>who are interested in its proceedings should be excluded.
>And just like the Senators quickly realized, I believe 
>these restrictions are unfounded.  
>
>With the pending release of the White Paper, we will 
>hopefully have some answers to the following questions 
>on Internet governance:
>  -  who will have authority for what.
>  -  what legal jurisdiction(s) will be used to resolve 
>     conflicts.  
>  -  what coordinated functions will be managed for the 
>     public good.
>
>IMHO, those functions that are being managed for the public 
>good *MUST* have open processes.  Unfortunately, we seem to 
>be moving in the opposite direction.
>
>Over the last couple of days, we have seen some of the
>organizations that currently manage Internet resources 
>take actions to quiet dissenting voices on their lists.   
>
>While there may be occassions where this is warranted, I do 
>object to the lack of due process that was used.  Without a set 
>of list standards <like http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/rules/>,
>any actions taken against any individual may be considered 
>arbitrary and biased, and potentially unfair.
>
>In closing, if PAB really wants to evolve to become the Policy 
>Advisory Board to the new Name Council (if that should come to 
>pass), I suggest that it become more inclusive with a more open 
>list.  
>
>Given the technical skills available in this community, there 
>is no reason why we can't use Internet techonology to provide 
>for a free and open flow of information.  Let's work together 
>to make *Internet* governance the *best* governance the world 
>has ever known.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.  
>404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com
>