Dear Vlad, Okay, thanks for the clarification. Brian. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Androuchko, Vladimir" <vladimir.androuchko@itu.int> To: "'brian@bwmc.demon.co.uk'" <brian@BWMC.DEMON.CO.UK> Cc: "pso-pc, ITU (MLIST)" <pso-pc@ties.itu.int> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:17 PM Subject: RE: PSO-PC Position on the Alternative Roots Issue > Dear Brian, > Sorry for the misunderstanding I may have caused. > My initial proposal was to make a new page, in addition to the Minutes, where various PSO-PC Statements/Positions could be posted. I did not mean a page for every Supporting Organization. > As you can see from the message of Mr. S. Lynn, he wants me to post the Statement of PSO-PC with all additions made. > My intention was to create a page for the Statements of PSO Council, and not for separate organizations. > I hope that this will clarify the situation. > Kind regards, > Vladimir > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Moore [mailto:brian@bwmc.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:54 PM > To: Androuchko, Vladimir; pso-pc, ITU (MLIST) > Subject: Re: PSO-PC Position on the Alternative Roots Issue > > > Dear Vlad, > I am not so sure that this is a good idea. We have always tried to get a > compromise statement on various issues which all in the PC can go along > with. In cases where we can not reach a common text we have agreed to > include in the PSO statement the separate views of the PC members. However > such a statement is still seen to be that of the PC and not of the > individual members. Having a website where the different positions can be > recorded as coming from the IETF, ITU-T etc seems to go away from this > objective. > Or perhaps I have misunderstood the proposal. > Brian. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Androuchko, Vladimir" <vladimir.androuchko@ITU.INT> > To: "pso-pc, ITU (MLIST)" <pso-pc@ties.itu.int> > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 9:50 AM > Subject: FW: PSO-PC Position on the Alternative Roots Issue > > > > Dear Protocol Council Members, > > I'm forwarding you the message of Mr. S. Lynn, who has asked me to post > the entire PSO-PC Statement/Position, including the various comments, on the > Alternative Roots Issue at some appropriate place on the PSO website. > > If you agree with this action, I would like to propose to enlarge the > Menue of PSO web site, by including a link to PSO-PC Positions/Statements. > > This may allow to have a new page, in addition to the Minutes, where > various PSO-PC Statements/Positions could be posted. > > Kind regards, > > Vlad > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: M. Stuart Lynn [mailto:lynn@icann.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 6:50 PM > > To: Androuchko, Vladimir > > Subject: Re: PSO-PC Position on the Alternative Roots Issue > > > > > > Dear Vladimir: > > > > Would it be possible to post this entire statement at some > > appropriate place on the PSO website, including the various comments? > > The September 28 Minutes do not reflect the full text. > > > > Many thanks > > Stuart > > > > >Dear Stuart, > > >On behalf of the Protocol Council, I'm sending you the Position of the > > >PSO-PC on the Alternative Roots Issue. It was agreed that each Protocol > > >Supporting Organization gives also its comments/statements concerning > > >the Alternative Roots Issue. > > > > > >The PSO Statement is: > > > > > >"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 IETF statement: > > > > > >"The Internet currently operates using a tree-structured name space > > >known as the DNS. Of necessity, such a name space must have a single, > > >authoritative root. Moving to a model that would not require such a > > >single, authoritative root would require replacing the present, working > > >DNS with some other system. Such a replacement would require the > > >development of a new naming paradigm, as well as the protocols and > > >software to implement it. Developing and deploying such replacement > > >protocols would take years, and would have enormous potential for > > >disruption of the Internet. IETF does not see any technical benefit > > >in such an effort." > > > > > >The ITU-T Study Group 2 conclusion on the Alternative Roots Issue, > > >which was reached during the ITU-T Study Group 2 meeting (Geneva, 4-14 > > >September 2001) states: > > > > > >"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." > > > > > >ETSI supports the IETF statement and the ITU-T Study Group 2 statement. > > >ETSI considers that the ITU-T Study Group 2 statement is outside the > scope > > >of the PSO. > > >W3C supported IETF Statement. > > > > > > -- > > > > __________________ > > Stuart Lynn > > President and CEO > > ICANN > > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 > > Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > > Tel: 310-823-9358 > > Fax: 310-823-8649 > > Email: lynn@icann.org