> You are persisting in pursuing a topic that is not in general debate,
> namely the number and allocation of SO slots.
This is a topic which is certainly quite open for discussion. Various PSO
proposals are being created and whether one, or even, any are accepted is
an open issue.
The PSO is clearly a useless and indeed dangerous lump in ICANN's breast.
The fact that it has not been clearly discussed in the past is merely to
acknowledge the larger concerns of ICANN's existance and the DNSO.
> It's fine that you are
> unhappy with the current plan, but it's not fine to insist on pursuing the
> matter long after it is resolved. To the extent that you think it is still
> a pending issue, then where is the rough consensus in support of your view?
I assert that once people understand the issues that there is no
concensus.
> If the IETF Poisson work is so terrible, then pursue an alternative proposal.
Here it is: Eliminate all mention of a PSO from ICANN's organic documents.
ICANN has work to do. Having a structure who's focus is on an event which
has never occured -- a conflict in assignment of a "protocol parameter"
between two different standards bodies or industry groups -- detracts from
ICANN's real work. And it is an egregious breach of faith to have that
useless structure be built using oligarchic elements which are absolutely
contrary to the notions found in the White Paper.
--karl--
