>To: Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: fyi - an exchange of mail with ICANN
>Cc: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> 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 04:34 PM 2/26/99 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>>
>>> ... As long as IANA is doing the allocating and
>>> it isn't being a big problem, why would ICANN, whatever you think it's
>>> power might be, act?
>>
>>And I don't think that there is any problem as long as a number is always
>>assigned and allocated.
>>
>>What is bothering me is the question of who has the ultimate authority to
>>say "no" to a standards body (the IETF being one) that wants a number for
>>a standard protocol?
>
>ICANN's belief, as I understand it, is that they would be responsible
>(mostly likely by approving a procedure from the PSO) to make sure that
>there is a procedure for resolving such difficulties.
>
--
"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
