> > "The most important duty for the PSO is supplying 3 Directors."
> >
> > That I guess also means
> > "The most important duty for the DNSO is supplying 3 Directors."
> > "The most important duty for the ASO is supplying 3 Directors."
>
> Doesn't necessarily mean that.
In other words, you believe that the PSO is more important than the other
PSOs.
To be concise: Simple technical elitism.
> > Which is, of course, patent nonesense.
>
> It isn't nonsense at all. As things are shaping up, the directors
> will have a great deal of power.
The ICANN board is limited to mechanically accepting initiatives from SO's
unless the board can find that one of a few very limited exceptions
applies.
That is not "a great deal of power".
> > The PSO covers policies regarding protocol parameters, and in particular
> > the policies regarding resolution of conflicts between allocations by
> > different standards and industry bodies. That's all the PSO covers.
>
> ...I don't agree with your interpretation of the bylaws;
Read the ICANN bylaws. They are pretty clear that each of the SO's covers
a narrow topic.
Even the POISED documents themselves reflect this limited scope of the
PSO except for the claim to also to have the ability to interfere with
the technical decisions of the other SO's.
> > The IETF can continue to hold technical meetings, that's fine. The IETF
> > used to be a good body for the discussion of technology.
>
> Thousands of people think it still is...thousands also think that it
> is the largest single repository of sane understanding of the the
> social consequences of the Internet.
I am reminded of the joke that ends with the line "and millions of flies
can't be wrong".
No matter what thousands of people (who account for only a tiny portion of
the billions of people on the planet) may think, it is still the case that
the PSO has no meaningful public policy content.
Positive elements the PSO brings to ICANN: Nothing.
Negative elements the PSO brings to ICANN: A PSO built on the notion that
"we are better than you are", that the IETF is the one and only body that
can be a voting member of the PSO, that others do not matter, that only
the IETF has any technical knowledge about the Internet and that the DNSO
and ASO do not, that the ICANN Chief Technology Officer (yet to be
appointed) will be inept.
If someone in the IETF wants to bring their social wisdom to bear, they
can join ICANN's general membership.
And it ought to be mentioned that the IETF and IAB did not support the
concept of a general membership for ICANN.
--karl--
