Sorry about the silence - I discovered this thread only yesterday. Didn't have time to study any details, but I don't want to delay sending a repsonse. Given that you guys have studied it, I'm fine with the response Livia Rosu Lunguran a écrit : > > I will now send the below statement to the ICANN Board, as finalized by > Gerry: > > "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 > that > the stability of the DNS resolution is protected. " > > P.S. I did't hear any comments from W3C representatives... > > Livia > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gerry Lawrence [mailto:Gerry.Lawrence@MARCONI.COM] > Sent: 06 March 2001 10:19 > To: PSO-PC@LIST.ETSI.FR > Subject: Re: Additional Melbourne Meeting Topic: Proposed Revisions > toAgreementswith VeriS (fwd) > > Hello, > > if everyone is happy with my words, and if we do not hear from W3C by end of > work say Thursday, then I propose that we ask Livia to communicate them > directly > to ICANN for input to their resolution meeting. > > This matter is getting rather delicate, to say the least! > > Gerry > ---------------------- Forwarded by Gerry Lawrence/MAIN/MC1 on 06/03/2001 > 09:11 > am --------------------------- > > Leslie Daigle <leslie@THINKINGCAT.COM> on 05/03/2001 08:00:37 pm > > Please respond to Leslie Daigle <leslie@THINKINGCAT.COM> > > To: PSO-PC@LIST.ETSI.FR > > cc: (bcc: Gerry Lawrence/MAIN/MC1) > > Subject: Re: Additional Melbourne Meeting Topic: Proposed > Revisions toAgreementswith VeriS (fwd) > > Howdy, > > Can we take silence as consent, or at least not dissent, from > W3C/Philipp and Danny? Guys? > > If there is general agreement, who wants to communicate it to > ICANN in time for their open meeting? > > Leslie. > > Gerry Lawrence wrote: > > > > 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 > some > > of the high emotions running through the public comments, some of which > seem > to > > me to be open to some sort of follow-up litigation, I would like to > disassociate > > 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 > would > > 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 > that > > the stability of the DNS resolution is protected. " > > > > Gerry İİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİ