I also support Gerry's approach. Fabio -----Original Message----- From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@RESEARCH.ATT.COM] Sent: 02 March 2001 20:32 To: PSO-PC@LIST.ETSI.FR Subject: Re: Additional Melbourne Meeting Topic: Proposed Revisions to Agreementswith VeriS (fwd) In message <80256A03.0067442E.00@marconicomms.com>, Gerry Lawrence writes: >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 so >me >of the high emotions running through the public comments, some of which seem t >o >me to be open to some sort of follow-up litigation, I would like to disassocia >te >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 woul >d >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 th >at >the stability of the DNS resolution is protected. " Sounds good. A possibly-thorny area is the registrar-registry protocol, but that will exist in any event, and hence doesn't represent any change. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb =========================================================================