Vlad, this looks good, although I have a couple of editorial suggestions below. I would also prefer if the IETF statement could go first, since it provides a more substantial clarification of the PSO statement, and has wider support in the PSO. I am concerned that we get the messaging right on this issue - having just been in Germany, I saw a headline in local IT press stating that "ICANN gives in to Alternative Root Servers", which was based on the minutes of the previous PSO teleconf. So the misunderstanding seems to be rather widespread, and we should as much as possible avoid having to spend much time to provide clarifications on our statement. "Androuchko, Vladimir" a écrit : ... > Dear Stuart, > On behalf of the Protocol Council, I'm sending you the Position of the > PSO-PC on the Alternative Roots Issue. It was agreed that each Protocol > Supporting Organization gives also its comments/statements concerning the > Alternative Roots Issue. > > The PSO Statement is: Rather: The PSO Statement (supported by ETSI) is: > "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." > > The ITU-T Study Group 2 conclusion on the Alternative Roots Issue, which was > reached during the ITU-T Study Group 2 meeting (Geneva, 4-14 September 2001) > states: > "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." > > IETF Statement on the Alternative Roots Issue is: Rather: The IETF Statement (supported by ETSI and W3C) is: > "The Internet currently operates using a tree-structured name space known as > the DNS. Of necessity, such a name space must have a single, authoritative > root. Moving to a model that would not require such a single, authoritative > root would require replacing the present, working DNS with some other > system. Such a replacement would require the development of a new naming > paradigm, as well as the protocols and software to implement it. Developing > and deploying such replacement protocols would take years, and would have > enormous potential for disruption of the Internet. > IETF does not see any technical benefit in such an effort." > > ETSI supported the ITU-T Study Group 2 Statement and the IETF Statement. > W3C supported IETF Statement. Strike this > Sincerely yours, > Vladimir