[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re of your Re: Comments to the At-Large Study Committee report



Hi
I think also that this is the only reasonable solution.
br.Tapio
----- Original Message -----
From: <azucena.hernandez@POP3.TELEFONICA.ES>
To: "Leslie Daigle" <leslie@THINKINGCAT.COM>;
<azucena.hernandez@POP3.TELEFONICA.ES>
Cc: "Androuchko, Vladimir" <vladimir.androuchko@itu.int>; "pso-pc, ITU
(MLIST)" <pso-pc@ties.itu.int>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 6:11 PM
Subject: Re of your Re: Comments to the At-Large Study Committee report


> That's fine, Leslie. I understand.
>
> In that case, I propose that each of us send the corresponding final text
> to Vlad so that he can compose a message staying something like:
>
> - The PSO PC has not reached consensus on comments to the ALSC document.
> Each of the 4 members of the PSO have prepared their own comments as
follows:
>
> - Comments from IETF (to be provided by Leslie and Steve)
> - Comments from ETSI (to be provided by Azuena & Tapio)
> - Comments from ITU (to be provided by Fabio & Brian)
> - Comments from W3C (to be provided by Philippe)
>
> ETSI will submit its final wording tomorrow before 12h CET.
> Kind regards,
> Azucena
> At 10:24 15/10/01 -0400, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> >Howdy,
> >
> >Thank you for (re)merging and the efforts to address the concern
> >I'd expressed.
> >
> >The IETF still cannot support this -- the remarks addressed to
> >size and composition of the ICANN board are outside the scope of the
> >PSO's mandate.  Furthermore, to get consensus between our 4 SDOs
> >to issue a statement addressing these delicate issues (whether
> >as the PSO-outside-of-mandate, or the 4 SDOs acting jointly),
> >we would need to do much more shared discussion, exploration of
> >alternatives, etc.  I think the lack of effort to do so since the
> >last teleconference is a reflection of a mutual sense of not being
> >close enough to reaching such consensus.
> >
> >This is a matter of principle, not document editing.
> >
> >I do fully appreciate your efforts to shape something more substantial
> >than a reply to the technical issues, but respectfully disagree
> >that this is the time or the place to do so on this issue.
> >
> >Leslie.
> >
> >azucena.hernandez@POP3.TELEFONICA.ES wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Vlad, dear PSO-PC colleagues,
> > >
> > > I have no objections to the reply that you have prepared for Denis
Michel.
> > > Thanks for it.
> > >
> > > What we must close now is the "discussion process" on the final
comments to
> > > the ALSC document that the PSO PC is going to send.
> > >
> > > I thought that we had fixed today, 15th October, as the deadline to
decide
> > > on the support received by  the "merged version" of the contributions
from
> > > ETSI and from IETF.
> > >
> > > After Vlad made the merge, I updated its content trying to solve the
> > > concerns raised by Leslie as there was, in fact, an inconsistency
within
> > > the text as result of the merge.
> > >
> > > It is my understanding that we are all looking at this text produced
by
> > > myself in order to decide whether it can be supported by all of us,
part of
> > > us,......
> > >
> > > I enclose the text again in "plain text" after these words in order to
help
> > > closing this outstanding action. We cannot wait until the next
> > > teleconference because it will be too late.
> > >
> > > Text under discussion/decision:
> > >
> >
****************************************************************************
******************************************Comments
> > > to the
> > > >ALSC Draft Report on ICANN At-Large Membership
> > > >(with further comments from Azucena and more changes related to
> > > >Leslie's  concern)
> > > >
> > > >PSO Protocol Council has analysed the comprehensive document drafted
by
> > > >the ALSC.
> > > >
> > > >Firstly, the PSO-PC wants to notify that no part of the above
referenced
> > > >document has any impact on technical issues neither for the Internet
> > > >Protocol nor for the operation of the Internet.
> > > >
> > > >Some of the content of the ALSC document has an impact on the
structure of
> > > >ICANN and therefore affects the PSO as ICANN Supporting Organization
and
> > > >all the comments contained herein are presented under this view.
> > > >
> > > >¨        PSO-PC supports the creation of an At Large Supporting
> > > >Organization to channel the involvement of At Large in the ICANN
structure
> > > >as it is in line with the approach followed to set up the other
> > existing 3 SOs.
> > > >¨       PSO-PC advices caution and care in the implementation of the
> > > >proposed ALSO membership restricted to "those individuals holding a
domain
> > > >name". While the ALSC has clearly examined the technical requirements
and
> > > >potential for abuse in e-mail based ALSO registration, we
nevertheless
> > > >observe that any at large effort, especially one based on direct
voting,
> > > >is going to be subject to considerable problems of authentication and
> > > >certification (that the same person does not appear multiple times).
If
> > > >the intent is to give the at large effort sufficient voting leverage,
> > > >efforts at capture are almost inevitable. 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.
> > > >¨       Furthermore,  PSO-PC considers that it would be beneficial
for the
> > > >Internet community to allow other means to become "At Large member"
such
> > > >as being an individual member of a national, regional or
international
> > > >recognised User Association not linked to commercial businesses. This
> > > >alternative will not bring the undesirable side effects of the one
linked
> > > >to the domain name registration.
> > > >¨       As for the number of seats in the ICANN Board that this
proposed
> > > >new Supporting Organization should have, PSO-PC considers that it
should
> > > >be identical to those assigned to the other ICANN SOs (presently 3
seats
> > > >per SO, further reconsideration of this number is acceptable). No
value
> > > >added is identified for increasing the number of seats for any of the
SOs
> > > >(including the proposed ALSO)  as those individuals elected would
hold,
> > > >anyhow, the representation of the whole SO. The overhead cost
associated
> > > >with an increase of the ICANN Board seats should be carefully
considered.
> > > >¨       Also, PSO-PC believes that ICANN is structured around a
careful
> > > >balance between technical and operational input. Decisions that
change the
> > > >balance, on the Board or elsewhere, need to be considered very
carefully
> > > >and examined for unintentional side effects.
> > > >¨       Regarding the duration of the terms of office of the ICANN
Board
> > > >members representing the ALSO, PSO-PC supports an identical model to
the
> > > >one followed so far by the existing 3 SOs..
> > > >¨       PSO-PC supports the target of having this new ALSO
self-funded,
> > > >self-organising and transparent, the way the PSO is. Initial funds
and
> > > >outreach from ICANN to start up the process is acceptable.
> > > >¨       PSO-PC supports the proposal made in the document of
increasing
> > > >the relationship and exchange of views between the ICANN Supporting
> > > >Organizations, including the proposed new one, the ALSO.
> > >
> >
****************************************************************************
******************************************
> > > It comes without saying that ETSI supports these words.
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Azucena
> >
> >--
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >"The best laid plans
> >     are written in pencil."
> >    -- ThinkingCat
> >
> >Leslie Daigle
> >leslie@thinkingcat.com
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ***************************************************
> Azucena Hernandez
> Telefonica
> Desarrollo de Red
> Tel: +34 91 5846842
> Fax: +34 915846843
> GSM: +34 609425506
> e-mail: azucena.hernandez@telefonica.es
> ***************************************************
>
>
>