All, For everyone's potential interest. From Poison mailing list.... Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
4403 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Sims [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > I think you misinterpret Esther's words. What she was doing > was attempting to be clear that ICANN did not see the PSO as > having authority over the assignment of protocol parameters. > She was certainly not asserting that the PSO would not be looked > to as a source of technical expertise, which it surely would, > both in providing technically competant members to the ICANN > Board and with respect to any other issue that might be > forwarded to the PSO for its advice and counsel. Joe, Sorry but I'm trying to clear up the supposed roles of the PSO which would potentially involve lots of SDO's. Fred, Scott and Brian asked for a specific clarification of the relationship between ICANN and IETF. Esther's reply says [ICANN] "does not understand this to mean the actual assignment of protocol parameters" but *rather* "dispute resolution between SDO's". Now you say above that Esther really meant that ICANN did not see the "PSO as having authority over the assignment of protocol parameters". So this we can only interpret to mean that either ICANN believes it has authority over protocol parameters or that ICANN believes SDO's have authority over protocol assignments. However, since Esther said: a) ICANN does not do actual assignment of protocol parameters, and b) one of the supposed roles of the PSO is to work out dispute resolution between SDO's. I can only interpret this to mean either: a) SDO's normally have authority and assignment responsibilities for protocols, but b) ICANN is going to be the arbiter over conflicts between SDO's *or* c) in the special case of the IETF, ICANN has authority over their related protocol assignments (because it certainly doesn't have authority over protocol assignments of other SDO's), but d) ICANN is *also* going to act as arbiter between SDO's Sorry but a) I don't see any hard data that the supposed arbiter role would justify a raison-d'�tre for creation of a PSO b) there are bilateral mechanisms between technical experts that can deal with these issues between SDO's c) I have never seen discussion of this alleged problem in the lead-up to the White Paper and d) I don't recall any SDO asking ICANN to solve an arbiter problem for them. Now you also say above that Esther "was certainly *not* asserting that the PSO would *not be looked to* as a source of technical expertise" (whew). I would argue that ICANN seeing itself as the arbiter between SDO's in the protocol area is a very big jump from ICANN needing good technical expertise. Bob
