Hello,
if everyone is happy with my words, and if we do not hear from W3C by end of
work say Thursday, then I propose that we ask Livia to communicate them directly
to ICANN for input to their resolution meeting.
This matter is getting rather delicate, to say the least!
Gerry
---------------------- Forwarded by Gerry Lawrence/MAIN/MC1 on 06/03/2001 09:11
am ---------------------------
Leslie Daigle <leslie@THINKINGCAT.COM> on 05/03/2001 08:00:37 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 toAgreementswith VeriS (fwd)
Howdy,
Can we take silence as consent, or at least not dissent, from
W3C/Philipp and Danny? Guys?
If there is general agreement, who wants to communicate it to
ICANN in time for their open meeting?
Leslie.
Gerry Lawrence wrote:
>
> 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
=========================================================================