In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard J. Sexton" writes:
>
> >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]
> om,
> > 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
>
>
