Thanks to Dianne for putting this up.
I find it extremely encouraging to see Scott Bradner suggesting that a
reassessment of the PSO and its relationship to ICANN is underway within
the IETF. Thus it looks as though it will be quite a while before ICANN
will get those three Board members. I have reason to believe that the IP
Registries will not have an address supporting organization proposal to
present at Singapore either. While there will be a DNS SO proposal(s)
there it is by no means sure that three new ICANN board members will
emerge. Consequently, the suggestion that the ICANN ship can be 'righted'
by getting the three SOs promptly constituted and nine new board members to
outvote the current misfits looks now to be still born.
The current ICANN with its closed board "ain't gonna" make it. Esther, in
my opinion, needs to quit fund raising and plan a SERIOUS round of
reconstruction for this currently still born organization at Apricot. The
resignation of the current board and selection of a new one and the
revision of the bylaws need to be the first order of business.
>> Subject:
>> PSO non-status report
>> Date:
>> Sun, 7 Feb 1999 12:10:40 -0500 (EST)
>> From:
>> Scott Bradner
>> To:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Some of you may be wondering what's going on about a Protocol Support
>> Organization (PSO) for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
>> Numbers (ICANN). Particularly those of you who noticed that ICANN's
>> deadline for the submission of SO proposals to be discussed at the next
>> ICANN board meeting has passed with no word about a PSO proposal might be
>> wondering. The discussion that was going on over this list a while back
>> just sort of dried up. The answer is: not much concrete is going on.
>> There are a number of reasons for this:
>>
>> Most of the people involved have day jobs and there has not been a lot of
>> spare cycles for the ICANN & PSO issues. This problem would have been
>> worked around if it were not for some other issues.
>>
>> It was clear from the last set of discussions that even though the
>> formation of a PSO could be quite important to the IETF there were not all
>> that many people engaged in the discussions on this list. Because of this
>> it seems like a good idea to address the PSO and ICANN relationship issues
>> in a face to face meeting during the next IETF meeting. This may even be
>> done in a plenary session due to the potential importance to the IETF as a
>> whole.
>>
>> In addition, since the PSO is supposed to represent those organizations
>> involved in Internet-related standards in some way I've been talking to
>> representatives from some of the other groups such as the W3C, ETSI and the
>> ITU. So far nothing of any consequence has come out of these discussions..
>> Everyone seems to be trying to figure out just what the landscape will look
>> like before getting into any real substance.
>>
>> Finally, the exact nature of the mandate that ICANN will get from the US
>> government is not yet resolved. Since the details of their mandate may
>> change the approach that the IETF and a PSO might want to adopt it seems
>> best to wait a while until this is better defined. Since the process of
>> figuring this out involves a number of sets of lawyers and multiple
>> government agencies and to some degree multiple governments, it is not
>> proceeding as quickly as anyone would have wished.
>>
>> So - the PSO effort has been mostly treading water
>>
>> In any case in the next few weeks I will be submitting a revision of the
>> PSO bylaws Internet Draft that was published quite a while ago. If you have
>> specific suggestions for the revision (apart from the removal of the tie-in
>> of the protocol number assignment process to the membership class - which
>> is already being done ) please let the list know. The current version
>> of the PSO bylaws is draft-ietf-poisson-pso-bl-01.txt.
>>
>> Scott
>>
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cookreport.com
NOTE: Contempt in which ICANN PRES. MIKE ROBERTS holds rest of Internet:
"Some of those people think the management [ICANN] should check with the
public [the Communities of the Internet] every time they make a decision,
which is crazy," Roberts said. "That's flat-out crazy." WIRED NEWS 2/4/99
***************************************************************************
