>Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:22:19 -0800
>To: Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: fyi - an exchange of mail with ICANN
>Cc: Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> om>
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>At 03:10 PM 2/26/99 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>> - The IEEE or ITU has to go to the IETF and ask for a number assignment.
>
>Today, this is reality
>
>> - The IEEE, ITU, and IETF (and others) are free to legislate the number
>> subject to the rules to be defined by ICANN.
>
>This is a better reality, I think, in that the ITU wants to be seen as
>subservient to the IETF about as much as the IETF wants to be subservient
>to the ITU. None-the-less, the rules for such want to be figured out in the
>PSO, not the ICANN Board, and the function wants to be separable from the
>DNS Mess. Until the PSO is set up, that leaves them with the IETF, it
>doesn't automagically move them somewhere that they have never been.
>
--
"How gratifying for once to know... that those up above
will serve those down below" - S. Todd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's all just marketing" +1 (613) 473-1719
Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
