Dear Leslie, dear PSO PC colleagues, I personally do not give importance to the interpretation from the various readers of the words which appear in documents and even less if they are done by journalists and appear in the press. The press plays with the words in the direction where they think could satisfy more readers. If we were going to respond to everything which is published, then we would not make any other work. A couple of weeks ago, a long article about ICANN appeared in the Spanish "technical" press and said something like this: "the Board of ICANN has 18 members, 5 of them are really representative and deserve to be there (the At Large) while all the others, including the Chairman, will be soon removed as they have been elected in a hidden manner by minority groups that nobody knows". My first reaction was to write to the director of the magazine and to tell him that he had an idiot working for him and to ask for a clear clarification. Then I calmed down and decided to spend my time solving problems for my company and for ETSI. Coming back to the issue that worries you, I thought that my proposal to make a single and definitive reply to Stuart Lynn including the RFC 2826 whose content is clear, would remove your concerns and cover your proposals made on Friday. I do not think that we need to explain what "we do not mean" but to find the right wording for saying "what we mean". Anyhow, please add or remove words from the statement and we all will express our view. Kind regards, Azucena At 11:09 17/09/01 -0400, Leslie Daigle wrote: >All, > >I need a clarification -- does this proposal tacitly imply that >the rest of the PSO-PC sees no need to address the issues I raised >on Friday? > >As they were not issues I dreamt up personally, but rather a proposal >based on what I'd heard from people who need to work with the >"interpretation" of our draft proposal, I suggest people thing harder >before ignoring the proposed changes. > >Thanks, >Leslie. > >azucena.hernandez@POP3.TELEFONICA.ES wrote: >> >> Dear Vlad, dear PSO PC colleagues, >> >> I have a couple of comments to make to your message: >> >> - firstly it should be sent to Stuart Lynn and not only Louis Touton. >> >> - I suggest a unified text with the final statement from PSO rather than 2 >> statements, one from ITU SG2 and another one from the rest. >> >> I make here a proposal for the unified text based on the 2 paragraphs: >> >> "The Internet DNS currently operates using a Single Authoritative Root >> Server System. Although, it would be technically possible to devise and >> standardize a fully compliant alternative multiple root server system, there >> appears to be no technical reason for changing from the present working >> system, as >> this would require the development of a new set of protocols for use by the >> DNS. Additional issues such as administrative and national sovereignty >> considerations reinforce the benefits to keep the present Single >> Authoritative Root Server System. >> As a conclusion, the PSO PC supports the content of RFC 2826. " >> >> What do your think?. >> Kind regards, >> Azucena >> At 15:00 17/09/01 +0200, Androuchko, Vladimir wrote: >> >Hello, >> >Dear Protocol Council Members, >> >Here is the draft text that I intend to send to Mr. L. Touton. >> >Please, give me your comments. >> >Best regards, >> >Vladimir >> > >> >Dear Mr. Luis Tuton, >> >As it was agreed during the last conference call of the PSO-PC, >> >Members of the Protocol Council were waiting the results of ITU-T Study >> >Group 2 on alternative roots issue. >> >Please, find thereafter the conclusion reached at their Meeting (Geneva, >> >4-14 September 2001): >> > >> >"Study Group 2 has noted the PSO statement and has no objections to it. >> >However, Study Group 2 notes that there may be other issues in addition to >> >technical reasons such as administrative and national sovereignty >> >considerations." >> > >> >Here is the provisionally agreed statement of the Protocol Council of 4 >> >September 2001: >> > >> >"The Internet DNS currently operates using a Single Authoritative Root >> >Server System. Although, it would be technically possible to devise and >> >standardize a fully compliant alternative multiple root server system, there >> >appears no technical reason for changing from the present working system, as >> >this would require the development of a new set of protocols for use by the >> >DNS. " >> >Best regards, >> >Vladimir >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ************************************************* >> Azucena Hernandez >> Telefonica >> Desarrollo de Red >> c/ Emilio Vargas, 4. E-28043-MADRID >> Tel: +34 91 5846842 >> Fax: +34 91 5846843 >> GSM: +34 609 425506 >> E-Mail: azucena.hernandez@telefonica.es >> ************************************************ > >-- > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >"The best laid plans > are written in pencil." > -- ThinkingCat > >Leslie Daigle >leslie@thinkingcat.com >------------------------------------------------------------------- > ************************************************* Azucena Hernandez Telefonica Desarrollo de Red c/ Emilio Vargas, 4. E-28043-MADRID Tel: +34 91 5846842 Fax: +34 91 5846843 GSM: +34 609 425506 E-Mail: azucena.hernandez@telefonica.es ************************************************