Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
I admit that I have not been able to spend as much time on this issue
as others, so I apologize if some issues have been covered that I'm
not aware of.
I think that ICANN's bylaws regarding the PSO are somewhat vague:
(iii) The Protocol Supporting Organization shall be composed of
representatives from Internet protocol organizations and others
with legitimate interests in these issues, as determined by the
Protocol Supporting Organization consistent with Section 2 of
this Article and approved by the Board. The Protocol Supporting
Organization shall create a Protocol Council to make
recommendations regarding the operation, assignment and
management of protocol parameters, such as port numbers,
enterprise numbers, other technical parameters and related
subjects.
Also, I am assuming that thus far, only the IETF has submitted a PSO
proposal. What other standards bodies have expressed interest in
being the PSO, either individually or jointly?
Is there a way to get clarification on these points? Esther?
--gregbo
