Dear Leslie, dear PSO- PC colleagues, I see the point made up by Leslie where some inconsistencies appear. I do not give up easily and therefore have tried to reconcile both paragraphs by softening some of its content. I enclose my proposed 2nd revision (with and without revision marks) for your consideration. Kind regards, Azucena At 12:18 8/10/01 -0400, Leslie Daigle wrote: > >Thank you, Azucena, for your efforts in reconciling the viewpoints. > >I will look for broader IETF input before commenting further, but >will note already that: > >> PSO-PC has no strong objections to restrict the membership of the >> proposed ALSO to "those individuals holding a domain name". > >is not consistent with: > >> While the ALSC report concludes that this is a problem for e-mail >> based voter registration, it is our opinion that existing technical >> systems are not sufficient for precluding the same behaviour in >> individual domain registration based systems. >> >> If ICANN at large voting "membership" is important, tying it to >> second- or third-level domain name registrations could lead to >> the creation of more registrations that are not tied to functioning >> domains. It would then also tend to further flatten the tree. Neither >> of these is desirable. > >Leslie. > >azucena.hernandez@POP3.TELEFONICA.ES wrote: >> >> Dear Vlad, dear PSO-PC colleagues, >> >> Thanks a lot for your work on merging the 2 available contributions (ETSI >> and IETF) to the ALSC report. >> >> Since our last teleconference, ETSI Board members have made further comments >> to the ETSI contribution on the light of making it more acceptable to other >> PSO PC members. I detected some problems for Leslie and Steve accepting the >> bullet points related to having 6 seats for each SO in the ICANN Board. ETSI >> proposes to delete them and just keep a general point : same number of seats >> per SO (3 like now or even more if needed). I enclose a revised version of >> the document submited by Vlad. >> >> I have also rephrased the introduction to make it clearer (as for a >> non-english native reader). >> >> Both Tapio and myself are happy with this enclosed revision but we are ready >> to keep negotiating to get a single PSO PC reply. >> >> Kind regards, >> Azucena >> >> At 11:10 5/10/01 +0200, you wrote: >> >Hello, >> >Dear Protocol Council Members, >> >As you have decided during last conference call to merge the comments of >> ETSI and IETF to the ALSC Draft Report on the At-Large membership, please >> find attached the draft merged version for your consideration and comments. >> >Best regards, >> >Vladimir >> > <<PSOCommentstoALSCDraftReport.doc>> >> > >> >Attachment Converted: C:\Eudora\Attach\PSOCommentstoALSCDraftReport.doc >> > >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Part 1.2 Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword) >> Encoding: BASE64 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ************************************************* >> 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 >------------------------------------------------------------------- >
azu rev2 PSOCommentstoALSCDraftReport.doc
clean-azu rev2 PSOCommentstoALSCDraftReport.doc
************************************************* 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 ************************************************