>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 02:50:22 -0500 (EST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Fred Baker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From cisco.com!fred Sat Feb 27 02:50:21 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from farley.cisco.com([171.71.17.21]) (1863 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:smtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 02:50:15 -0500 (EST)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: from kiwi.cisco.com (kiwi.cisco.com [171.71.17.73]) by
farley.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id XAA25910; Fri, 26 Feb
1999 23:49:47 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from fred-pc (fred-hm-dhcp3.cisco.com [171.69.128.118]) by
kiwi.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/CISCO.WS.1.2) with SMTP id XAA16990; Fri, 26
Feb 1999 23:49:53 -0800 (PST)
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2
>Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 23:36:22 -0800
>To: jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: fyi - an exchange of mail with ICANN
>Cc: Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>At 02:48 AM 2/27/99 +0000, jeff Williams wrote:
>>>Until the PSO is set up, that leaves them with the IETF, it
>>>doesn't automagically move them somewhere that they have never been.
>>
>> I would say that your conclusion here is questionable. We may submit
>>our own PSO proposal, or someone else may. I could even be imagined
>>given the current actions of the ICANN Board, that the ICANN itself may set
>>put forth it's own PSO proposal.
>
>I'm not certain how the two statements correlate. There are a number of
>possibilities about how the PSO might be formed, and what might happen
>after it is. I'm not sure how that relates to the present reality that
>protocol numbers have been assigned by IANA on behalf of the IETF?
>
--
"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
