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

Re: FW: FW: ETSI candidate to ICANN Committee Internationalized Domai n Names



In message <905DD86907DAD3119DE70000778D770F04E4137A@mailsrv1.itu.ch>, "Androuc
hko, Vladimir" writes:

>
>Dear Steve, dear PSO PC colleagues,
>
>Without having any other candidate from the PSO to the newly created ICANN
>IDN committee, I am not going to enter into details about whether or not Mr
>Laorden has the appropriate background. Once we have all the candidates,
>then we will analyse the pros and cons of each of them and choose the one
>who can best contribute to the work.
>Mr Laorden in well known in ICANN and he is participating the  new gTLDs
>task group. He has followed the work on International Domains since it
>started as Spanish is a language with characters outside the basic ANSI
>set. He is indeed not an "IETF guy" but it is an ETSI member and therefore
>qualified to be a candidate from our organisation.
>Has the IETF a candidate?

I'm by no means suggesting that the PSO nominee has to be an "IETF guy" -- 
I was simply stating what the IETF had found to be at the heart of the 
technical problems.

But the issue I was really raising is more basic:  what are the 
qualifications we're looking for?  Until we know that, we don't know 
whom to nominate.  My assumption is that since we as a group are 
charged with providing technical advice, we should try to select 
someone can provide such guidance on committees.  But that's just what 
I said it was: an assumption.  I'm quite willing to be persuaded 
otherwise in any given case.  (The IETF strongly encourages its working 
groups to write requirements documents before trying to invent a 
solution.  I'm sure that other groups operate the same way.)

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
		Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.com