John and all, This is a bunch of BS, and I believe that you know it is as well. Several organizations that DID come forward before the Berlin fiasco, were denied recognition out of hand or ignored entirely for reasons that to this day have yet to be answered specifically by the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board, or for that matter the IETF. I believe they were mostly denied or ignored as they were organizations that were of a commercial or independent nature.... John C Klensin wrote: > Michael, > > To answer your questions in reverse order, the criteria are in the posted > internet draft MOU, which has been around for several weeks now. I'll send > you a copy of the latest version (expected to be signed tonight) under > separate cover and let Erik or Scott decide whether it is worth cluttering > the list with it ( > > And the organizations cited are those who had come forward before the > Berlin meeting, expressed interest, and appear (although it is possible to > debate details) to meet those criteria. The changes from the posted I-D > are trivial and administrative, and do not impact these criteria. > > The bootstrapping processes needed to get a new group/organization started > and define its initial membership are always difficult, because no one > obviously (including IETF) should have a monopoly on determining what other > organizations should get in. Put differently, there should be a consensus > process to determine the initial membership, but, until the initial > membership is defined, there is no obviously way to determine who should > participate in that consensus process. In this situation, IETF has > taken the lead --for reasons we, at least, would like to believe are > obvious-- but is ultimately not in a good position to decide "X should not > be admitted because we don't believe they are sufficiently a peer of ours" > (even if there were IETF consensus behind such a position, which their > doesn't appear to be in this case for either of the groups you question). > > Perhaps more important, please remember that the PSO and Protocol Council > is expected to be largely an advisory and review group, not a > policy-development one. In the unlikely event that disputes break out > among PSO SDOs about protocol name or number assignments, we expect they > will do what they have done successfully for years, which is just to work > the answers out bilaterally, without the PSO (or anyone else) needing to > get involved. And, as long as the main functions are advisory (and largely > informal), ICANN's getting a little extra advice, or an extra perspective, > is fairly harmless. Consequently, resolving a "gray" situation by erring > on the side of inclusiveness is not obviously a bad thing. > > john > > --On Wednesday, July 14, 1999, 09:28 -0400 "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami > School of Law" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Can you please expand on the reasons for including the ITU? This does > > not seem like an obvious win-win proposition. > >... > > Can you please expand on the reasons for including ETSI? > > > > More generally, what are the criteria that generated the above list? > > john Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) 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
