Azucena,
_Thank_you_ for the words expressing your perspective on the issue.
I think I better understand where our perspectives are at odds.
I agree we can't react to any and all press/public interpretations
of what we say & do. However, as it was presented to me, the specific
material issue is that Weinberg is filing for a reconsideration, and
_ICANN_ (in the shape of Louis Touton) is confused about our
position and expects our statement to support the reconsideration
claim. It's one thing that the press gets confused; I think we've
agreed we're here to support ICANN.
To refine my earlier suggestion, Louis Touton/ICANN could use a
clarification from us, and a statement to Weinberg (not the press
publisher) would not be remiss.
That is, IF we agree on a tightened version, but from Fabio's last
posting, it's not at all clear to me that we do.
Best,
Leslie.
.
azucena.hernandez@POP3.TELEFONICA.ES wrote:
>
> Dear Leslie, dear PSO PC colleagues,
>
> I personally do not give importance to the interpretation from the various
> readers of the words which appear in documents and even less if they are
> done by journalists and appear in the press. The press plays with the words
> in the direction where they think could satisfy more readers. If we were
> going to respond to everything which is published, then we would not make
> any other work.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, a long article about ICANN appeared in the Spanish
> "technical" press and said something like this: "the Board of ICANN has 18
> members, 5 of them are really representative and deserve to be there (the
> At Large) while all the others, including the Chairman, will be soon removed
> as they have been elected in a hidden manner by minority groups that nobody
> knows". My first reaction was to write to the director of the magazine and
> to tell him that he had an idiot working for him and to ask for a clear
> clarification. Then I calmed down and decided to spend my time solving
> problems for my company and for ETSI.
>
> Coming back to the issue that worries you, I thought that my proposal to
> make a single and definitive reply to Stuart Lynn including the RFC 2826
> whose content is clear, would remove your concerns and cover your proposals
> made on Friday.
>
> I do not think that we need to explain what "we do not mean" but to find the
> right wording for saying "what we mean".
>
> Anyhow, please add or remove words from the statement and we all will
> express our view.
> Kind regards,
> Azucena
> At 11:09 17/09/01 -0400, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> >All,
> >
> >I need a clarification -- does this proposal tacitly imply that
> >the rest of the PSO-PC sees no need to address the issues I raised
> >on Friday?
> >
> >As they were not issues I dreamt up personally, but rather a proposal
> >based on what I'd heard from people who need to work with the
> >"interpretation" of our draft proposal, I suggest people thing harder
> >before ignoring the proposed changes.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Leslie.
> >
> >azucena.hernandez@POP3.TELEFONICA.ES wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Vlad, dear PSO PC colleagues,
> >>
> >> I have a couple of comments to make to your message:
> >>
> >> - firstly it should be sent to Stuart Lynn and not only Louis Touton.
> >>
> >> - I suggest a unified text with the final statement from PSO rather than 2
> >> statements, one from ITU SG2 and another one from the rest.
> >>
> >> I make here a proposal for the unified text based on the 2 paragraphs:
> >>
> >> "The Internet DNS currently operates using a Single Authoritative Root
> >> Server System. Although, it would be technically possible to devise and
> >> standardize a fully compliant alternative multiple root server system, there
> >> appears to be no technical reason for changing from the present working
> >> system, as
> >> this would require the development of a new set of protocols for use by the
> >> DNS. Additional issues such as administrative and national sovereignty
> >> considerations reinforce the benefits to keep the present Single
> >> Authoritative Root Server System.
> >> As a conclusion, the PSO PC supports the content of RFC 2826. "
> >>
> >> What do your think?.
> >> Kind regards,
> >> Azucena
> >> At 15:00 17/09/01 +0200, Androuchko, Vladimir wrote:
> >> >Hello,
> >> >Dear Protocol Council Members,
> >> >Here is the draft text that I intend to send to Mr. L. Touton.
> >> >Please, give me your comments.
> >> >Best regards,
> >> >Vladimir
> >> >
> >> >Dear Mr. Luis Tuton,
> >> >As it was agreed during the last conference call of the PSO-PC,
> >> >Members of the Protocol Council were waiting the results of ITU-T Study
> >> >Group 2 on alternative roots issue.
> >> >Please, find thereafter the conclusion reached at their Meeting (Geneva,
> >> >4-14 September 2001):
> >> >
> >> >"Study Group 2 has noted the PSO statement and has no objections to it.
> >> >However, Study Group 2 notes that there may be other issues in addition to
> >> >technical reasons such as administrative and national sovereignty
> >> >considerations."
> >> >
> >> >Here is the provisionally agreed statement of the Protocol Council of 4
> >> >September 2001:
> >> >
> >> >"The Internet DNS currently operates using a Single Authoritative Root
> >> >Server System. Although, it would be technically possible to devise and
> >> >standardize a fully compliant alternative multiple root server system, there
> >> >appears no technical reason for changing from the present working system, as
> >> >this would require the development of a new set of protocols for use by the
> >> >DNS. "
> >> >Best regards,
> >> >Vladimir
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> *************************************************
> >> Azucena Hernandez
> >> Telefonica
> >> Desarrollo de Red
> >> c/ Emilio Vargas, 4. E-28043-MADRID
> >> Tel: +34 91 5846842
> >> Fax: +34 91 5846843
> >> GSM: +34 609 425506
> >> E-Mail: azucena.hernandez@telefonica.es
> >> ************************************************
> >
> >--
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >"The best laid plans
> > are written in pencil."
> > -- ThinkingCat
> >
> >Leslie Daigle
> >leslie@thinkingcat.com
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> *************************************************
> Azucena Hernandez
> Telefonica
> Desarrollo de Red
> c/ Emilio Vargas, 4. E-28043-MADRID
> Tel: +34 91 5846842
> Fax: +34 91 5846843
> GSM: +34 609 425506
> E-Mail: azucena.hernandez@telefonica.es
> ************************************************
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"The best laid plans
are written in pencil."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------