In message <80256A03.0067442E.00@marconicomms.com>, Gerry Lawrence writes:
>I would support Leslie's approach but would suggest to refine the words a bit
>further.
>
>I have spent the whole afternoon reading the details of the proposal with
>Verisign, and trying to read the public comments but they are coming in thick
>and fast. Louis Touton in his e-mail to the Protocol Council invites us to
>"provide any comments and recommendations it chooses to offer." In view of so
>me
>of the high emotions running through the public comments, some of which seem t
>o
>me to be open to some sort of follow-up litigation, I would like to disassocia
>te
>us from having to make anything other than technical comments on any protocol
>issues that might occur as a result of splitting the three registries. I woul
>d
>not like to see later any comments that the PSO did not comment against the
>proposals, which could be interpreted as for example we favour the continued
>running of .com by Verisign as in the proposal.
>
>So maybe we could take Leslie's words to read something like this:
>
>"The PSO has considered the proposal only with regard to potential
>protocol-related technical issues as a result of splitting .com, .net and .org
>into three registries, and can see no problems with this approach providing th
>at
>the stability of the DNS resolution is protected. "
Sounds good. A possibly-thorny area is the registrar-registry
protocol, but that will exist in any event, and hence doesn't represent
any change.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
=========================================================================