That's fine, Leslie. I understand. In that case, I propose that each of us send the corresponding final text to Vlad so that he can compose a message staying something like: - The PSO PC has not reached consensus on comments to the ALSC document. Each of the 4 members of the PSO have prepared their own comments as follows: - Comments from IETF (to be provided by Leslie and Steve) - Comments from ETSI (to be provided by Azuena & Tapio) - Comments from ITU (to be provided by Fabio & Brian) - Comments from W3C (to be provided by Philippe) ETSI will submit its final wording tomorrow before 12h CET. Kind regards, Azucena At 10:24 15/10/01 -0400, Leslie Daigle wrote: >Howdy, > >Thank you for (re)merging and the efforts to address the concern >I'd expressed. > >The IETF still cannot support this -- the remarks addressed to >size and composition of the ICANN board are outside the scope of the >PSO's mandate. Furthermore, to get consensus between our 4 SDOs >to issue a statement addressing these delicate issues (whether >as the PSO-outside-of-mandate, or the 4 SDOs acting jointly), >we would need to do much more shared discussion, exploration of >alternatives, etc. I think the lack of effort to do so since the >last teleconference is a reflection of a mutual sense of not being >close enough to reaching such consensus. > >This is a matter of principle, not document editing. > >I do fully appreciate your efforts to shape something more substantial >than a reply to the technical issues, but respectfully disagree >that this is the time or the place to do so on this issue. > >Leslie. > >azucena.hernandez@POP3.TELEFONICA.ES wrote: > > > > Dear Vlad, dear PSO-PC colleagues, > > > > I have no objections to the reply that you have prepared for Denis Michel. > > Thanks for it. > > > > What we must close now is the "discussion process" on the final comments to > > the ALSC document that the PSO PC is going to send. > > > > I thought that we had fixed today, 15th October, as the deadline to decide > > on the support received by the "merged version" of the contributions from > > ETSI and from IETF. > > > > After Vlad made the merge, I updated its content trying to solve the > > concerns raised by Leslie as there was, in fact, an inconsistency within > > the text as result of the merge. > > > > It is my understanding that we are all looking at this text produced by > > myself in order to decide whether it can be supported by all of us, part of > > us,...... > > > > I enclose the text again in "plain text" after these words in order to help > > closing this outstanding action. We cannot wait until the next > > teleconference because it will be too late. > > > > Text under discussion/decision: > > > **********************************************************************************************************************Comments > > to the > > >ALSC Draft Report on ICANN At-Large Membership > > >(with further comments from Azucena and more changes related to > > >Leslie's concern) > > > > > >PSO Protocol Council has analysed the comprehensive document drafted by > > >the ALSC. > > > > > >Firstly, the PSO-PC wants to notify that no part of the above referenced > > >document has any impact on technical issues neither for the Internet > > >Protocol nor for the operation of the Internet. > > > > > >Some of the content of the ALSC document has an impact on the structure of > > >ICANN and therefore affects the PSO as ICANN Supporting Organization and > > >all the comments contained herein are presented under this view. > > > > > >¨ PSO-PC supports the creation of an At Large Supporting > > >Organization to channel the involvement of At Large in the ICANN structure > > >as it is in line with the approach followed to set up the other > existing 3 SOs. > > >¨ PSO-PC advices caution and care in the implementation of the > > >proposed ALSO membership restricted to "those individuals holding a domain > > >name". While the ALSC has clearly examined the technical requirements and > > >potential for abuse in e-mail based ALSO registration, we nevertheless > > >observe that any at large effort, especially one based on direct voting, > > >is going to be subject to considerable problems of authentication and > > >certification (that the same person does not appear multiple times). If > > >the intent is to give the at large effort sufficient voting leverage, > > >efforts at capture are almost inevitable. While the ALSC report concludes > > >that this is a problem for e-mail based voter registration, it is our > > >opinion that existing technical systems are not sufficient for precluding > > >the same behaviour in individual domain registration based systems. > > >¨ If ICANN at large voting "membership" is important, tying it to > > >second- or third-level domain name registrations could lead to the > > >creation of more registrations that are not tied to functioning domains. > > >It would then also tend to further flatten the tree. Neither of these is > > >desirable. > > >¨ Furthermore, PSO-PC considers that it would be beneficial for the > > >Internet community to allow other means to become "At Large member" such > > >as being an individual member of a national, regional or international > > >recognised User Association not linked to commercial businesses. This > > >alternative will not bring the undesirable side effects of the one linked > > >to the domain name registration. > > >¨ As for the number of seats in the ICANN Board that this proposed > > >new Supporting Organization should have, PSO-PC considers that it should > > >be identical to those assigned to the other ICANN SOs (presently 3 seats > > >per SO, further reconsideration of this number is acceptable). No value > > >added is identified for increasing the number of seats for any of the SOs > > >(including the proposed ALSO) as those individuals elected would hold, > > >anyhow, the representation of the whole SO. The overhead cost associated > > >with an increase of the ICANN Board seats should be carefully considered. > > >¨ Also, PSO-PC believes that ICANN is structured around a careful > > >balance between technical and operational input. Decisions that change the > > >balance, on the Board or elsewhere, need to be considered very carefully > > >and examined for unintentional side effects. > > >¨ Regarding the duration of the terms of office of the ICANN Board > > >members representing the ALSO, PSO-PC supports an identical model to the > > >one followed so far by the existing 3 SOs.. > > >¨ PSO-PC supports the target of having this new ALSO self-funded, > > >self-organising and transparent, the way the PSO is. Initial funds and > > >outreach from ICANN to start up the process is acceptable. > > >¨ PSO-PC supports the proposal made in the document of increasing > > >the relationship and exchange of views between the ICANN Supporting > > >Organizations, including the proposed new one, the ALSO. > > > ********************************************************************************************************************** > > It comes without saying that ETSI supports these words. > > Kind regards, > > Azucena > >-- > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >"The best laid plans > are written in pencil." > -- ThinkingCat > >Leslie Daigle >leslie@thinkingcat.com >------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************** Azucena Hernandez Telefonica Desarrollo de Red Tel: +34 91 5846842 Fax: +34 915846843 GSM: +34 609425506 e-mail: azucena.hernandez@telefonica.es ***************************************************