I would support Leslie's approach but would suggest to refine the words a bit
further.
I have spent the whole afternoon reading the details of the proposal with
Verisign, and trying to read the public comments but they are coming in thick
and fast. Louis Touton in his e-mail to the Protocol Council invites us to
"provide any comments and recommendations it chooses to offer." In view of some
of the high emotions running through the public comments, some of which seem to
me to be open to some sort of follow-up litigation, I would like to disassociate
us from having to make anything other than technical comments on any protocol
issues that might occur as a result of splitting the three registries. I would
not like to see later any comments that the PSO did not comment against the
proposals, which could be interpreted as for example we favour the continued
running of .com by Verisign as in the proposal.
So maybe we could take Leslie's words to read something like this:
"The PSO has considered the proposal only with regard to potential
protocol-related technical issues as a result of splitting .com, .net and .org
into three registries, and can see no problems with this approach providing that
the stability of the DNS resolution is protected. "
Gerry
---------------------- Forwarded by Gerry Lawrence/MAIN/MC1 on 02/03/2001 06:17
pm ---------------------------
Leslie Daigle <leslie@THINKINGCAT.COM> on 01/03/2001 04:58:39 pm
Please respond to Leslie Daigle <leslie@THINKINGCAT.COM>
To: PSO-PC@LIST.ETSI.FR
cc: (bcc: Gerry Lawrence/MAIN/MC1)
Subject: Re: Additional Melbourne Meeting Topic: Proposed
Revisions to Agreementswith VeriS
(fwd)
I think I would phrase it rather as -- having reviewed it, I don't
see any issues in it for the PSO to raise concern over. The one
concern we might have is in terms of stability of DNS resolution
over .com/.org/.net, and they do seem to be aware of that to any
extent we might offer input.
Leslie.
Steve Bellovin wrote:
>
> I personally don't see any particular need for the Protocol Council to
> comment on this.
>
> ------- Forwarded Message
>
> Message-ID: <3A9E5287.BF690F5E@icann.org>
> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 05:45:43 -0800
> From: Louis Touton <touton@icann.org>
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
> X-Accept-Language: en,ja
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: smb@research.att.com, Fabio.Bigi@itu.int, leslie@thinkingcat.com,
> ph@w3.org, bridget.cosgrave@etsi.fr, gerry.lawrence@marconi.com,
> brian@bwmc.demon.co.uk, djweitzner@w3.org
> Cc: Livia Rosu <Livia.Rosu@etsi.fr>
> Subject: Additional Melbourne Meeting Topic: Proposed Revisions to Agreements
> with VeriSign
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> To the Protocol Council:
>
> Today ICANN posted on its web site
> <http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm>
> a proposal for revision of the registry agreement for the .com/net/.org
> registry. Details of the proposal are explained in the topic paper at
> the URL set forth above. One aspect of the proposal is to separate the
> contractual arrangements for the three TLDs; the topic paper provides
> links to proposed registry agreements for each of them.
>
> The proposed revision will be discussed at the 12 March 2001 Public
> Forum in Melbourne. The Board expects to consider the matter at
> Melbourne, but to take action on this topic in the weeks after the
> Melbourne meeting. In connection with the Board's consideration of
> this revision, the Protocol Supporting Organiation is requested to
> provide any comments and recommendations it chooses to offer.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Louis Touton
> ICANN Secretary
>
> ------- End of Forwarded Message
>
> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Winters never cease."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================