Hi Now combining Leslies and Azucenas/my comments the final would be as Leslie writes with adding to the end of the last but one pararagraph concerning the SG 2 text which ends up with... administrative and national sovereignity considerations. The PSO-PC considers this notion of SG 2 being outside of the scope of the PSO. Then the last sentence should be as follows: ETSI supports the IETF statement and the ITU-T statement with the PSO-PC consideration and W3C supports the IETF stement. Is this finally right so? Tapio ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leslie Daigle" <leslie@thinkingcat.com> To: <azucena.hernandez@POP3.TELEFONICA.ES> Cc: "Androuchko, Vladimir" <vladimir.androuchko@itu.int>; "pso-pc, ITU (MLIST)" <pso-pc@ties.itu.int> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 7:08 PM Subject: Re: PSO-PC Alternative Roots Position > Howdy, > > If I have followed the proposed edits correctly, that makes the > proposed text as attached...? > > Leslie. > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > "The best laid plans > are written in pencil." > -- ThinkingCat > > Leslie Daigle > leslie@thinkingcat.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > 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: > > "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 IETF statement: > > "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." > > 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." > > ETSI supported the ITU-T Study Group 2 Statement and the IETF Statement. > W3C supported IETF Statement. > > >