(re-posted to list@ifwp, since the original note was posted to both ifwp
and domain-policy. /d)
At 06:39 PM 3/10/99 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>>And it should be remembered that that means that the PSO, despite its
>>almost complete lack of substantive public policy content, gets as much
>>weight on the ICANN board as does the entire DNSO or the Address SO.
>
>Even worse, it's a closed architecture. The IAB folks have
>taken control and are attempting to define themselves to
>be the IETF - exclusively and in perpetuity.
The above statements are inaccurate in every detail.
1. A proposal is being circulated through normal, open IETF
procedures. Hence, any adoption of the proposal will be the result of
normal, IETF rough consensus.
2. The proposal is being developed and discussed in an IETF working group,
rather than being an "action" of the IAB. The author of one draft document
is the chair of the IAB, but one hopes that his affiliation should not
PREVENT his participation, as the above claim would seem to imply. The
author of the other draft wears a number of different hats, including IETF
area director and ISOC board of trustees member. So I suppose that makes
HIS effort a(nother) ploy by ISOC to take over the net?
3. There is nothing in the documents that has the IAB "defin[ing]
themselves to be the IETF". Not even close.
To repeat, the above quote contained 3 assertions and all three are
entirely false.
At 03:11 PM 3/10/99 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>Does this template draft sent to the IETF Poised list this
>morning work for people? Credit, of course, goes to the
>many people in Singapore who made this a reality. Maybe they
>should be reflected as the authors.
What is most interesting about this "template" is that no other protocol
organization has come forward to participate -- never mind to express
concern -- about their representation in the PSO. Hence, it appears that
this "template" is trying to solve a problem that does not exist. Since
ICANN activities should be more pragmatic than serving as exercises in
theoretical completeness, this pseudo-proposal serves only to distract from
the open and constructive specification effort being pursued in the IETF.
d/
ps. Would someone please forward this to Tony, in case he cares to respond
to the refutation of factual errors in his note?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
