Hi, The fragment posted was the IETF position conveyed to the PSO-PC, that I read out verbatim in the teleconference. As you may note, it refers in the second paragraph to the "IETF members of the PSO". Personally, I'm not unduly worried whether the IETF response is used in the PSO-PC response to ISO or not, but I am anxious to ensure that any message conveys two major points that were part of the discussion in the meeting: 1 - The message conveys no impression that the application will ultimately be acceptable to the PSO-PC, nor that it will be unacceptable. Neutral wording should be used that ensures that me implicit message of acceptance be conveyed to ISO. That is, we have reached no outcome, nor any sense of what that outcome may be at this stage, and the message should convey that strict neutrality of position. (As an example, in the draft below I find "welcomes your application" to be potentially misinterpreted, and I would prefer to see "acknowledges receipt of your application" as a more neutral message) 2 - The message accurately indicates that there are many potential outcomes of the ICANN reform process, and within this spectrum of outcomes there is the potential that the PSO ceases to exist, or that its new incarnation is along very different lines to that in operation today. Furthermore, the message should note that the application will be considered only when ICANN itself has reached a more stable view of its own structure, and within this structure the PSO and the defining instrument (the MoU) exist in a form largely identical to that used today. If this more detailed message can be folded into the response then I've no particular opinion on the desireable strength or softness of the message. My interest is to ensure that the message does not convey any hints of false impressions, and that it accurately indicates the circumstances under which the application will be considered in the future. regards, Geoff At 4/11/2002 05:58 PM, azucena.hernandezperez@telefonica.es wrote: >Dear Geoff, dear PSO PC colleagues, > >Thanks a lot for your draft whose words look to me somehow stronger and far >beyond our discussion yesterday. I would prefer a softer response to ISO >not precluding that the PSO is going to disappear in the process of the >reorganization of ICANN. > >I would suggest something like this: > >"The PSO PC welcomes your application for membership within the PSO and >would like to address the following points to you: > >1.- We miss some important information in your application regarding the >fulfillment of criteria 8 (a) (ii) of the PSO MoU. We kindly ask you to >submit details about that. > >2.- Considering the ongoing discussions taking place within ICANN about its >own structure and the ones of the present Supporting Organizations, the PSO >PC is in favour of postponing any decision about new membership into the >PSO until further clarification emerges from the ongoing discussions. " > >I am willing to discuss any other wording but I would have problems to >accept the initial draft from Geoff. > >Kind regards, >Azucena > > > > >Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>@pso.icann.org con fecha 10/04/2002 15:26:00 > >Por favor, responda a Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net> > >Enviado por: owner-pso-pc@pso.icann.org > > >Destinatarios: "Androuchko, Vladimir" <vladimir.androuchko@itu.int> >CC: "pso-pc, ITU (MLIST)" <pso-pc@ties.itu.ch> >Asunto: Re: ISO application for SDO membership of the PSO - DRAFT of > part of the response > > >Draft of response regarding application from ISO: > >--- >We note that within the current process for ICANN evolution and reform the >role of the Protocol Support Organization (PSO) and the associated Protocol >Support Council is under review. One potential outcome of this review, as >noted in discussion papers prepared by the ICANN President and CEO, is that >the PSO ceases to exist in its current form. > >It would be premature to admit new members to this organization at this >point in time given this level of uncertainty over the future of the PSO. >Once ICANN itself has a more stable view of its intended role and >associated operating model, and if the Protocol Support Organization exists >in a format similar to today within this model, the IETF members of the PSO >would then be happy to consider this application on its merits, according >to the criteria outlined in the PSO MoU. > > >--- > >(It is also requested that the applicant address the criteris of 8(a)(ii) >of the PSO MoU) > > > > >___________________________________________________________________________ > >Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener >información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario >indicado, queda notificado de que la utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin >autorización está prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha >recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique >inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. > > >This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain >information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege. >If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any >dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly >prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please >immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it. >___________________________________________________________________________