[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: a cut at a icann-based pso

Tim and all,

  Good points here tim, most especially with respect to
the use of the term "Consensus" and how it is or should
be determined.  I made many of the same points in my
specific comments as you did here in different terms of course.

Tim Salo wrote:

> > Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 08:33:12 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
> A handful of comments follow.
> > Subject: a cut at a icann-based pso
> >       [...]
> > 1.    Definition of the PSO.
> >
> >   a.  The Protocol Support Organization (PSO) will be a consensus-
> >       based advisory body within ICANN
> >       [...]
> > 5.    Selection of Protocol Council Members.
> >
> >       ... The consensus of the General Assembly will be
> >       sought for the resulting slate.
> I think we might be careful with the term "consensus".  While the
> current meaning of the term is "a general agreement", and the IETF
> meaning is even "rougher", the traditional use of the term implies
> that every member has a veto power.  (See, for example, the traditional
> use of consensus in Friends meetings.)  What happens if a consensus
> is not reached?  Nothing?  Or, is one simply declared?  Or, is this
> language intended to give every SDO veto power?  (If so, you might
> consider simply saying so in order to make it clear.)
> >       The initial signatories of the MOU are expected to be ICANN,
> >       IETF and W3C. All existing signatories must agree to the
> >       admission of new signatories.
> I may not understand the application of this paragraph, but it would
> seem to obviate the need for a lot of the almost artificial and
> ideological restrictions is Appendix A.  I think the document would
> read better, (i.e., not read as if it almost contains an explicit
> list of organizations that aren't permitted to be in the PSO), if perhaps
> half of Appendix A were removed.
> >       A General Assembly will be held at least once per year, and
> >       will permit open participation by all interested individuals.
> >       [...]
> >       It is expected that the major SDOs within the Internet protocol
> >       standards development community will provide the constituency
> >       of the General Assembly.
> Are these two paragraphs in conflict, ("all interested individuals"
> versus "the major SDOs ... will provide the constituency")?
> >       To save money the General Assembly would meet annually on
> >       Friday afternoon at a general IETF meeting (with an effort to
> >       hold no 2 consecutive meetings in the same geographic region.
> This seems like excessive detail; you might want to change your mind,
> (perhaps merely to Friday morning).
> > Appendix A - requirements for consideration as a PSO-qualified SDO
> Much of this language appears written to exclude some particular group.
> Section 2 may restrictive enough to eliminate much of this language.
> Plus, Section 2 provides for a lot more future flexibility.
> >   SDOs must be open, international, voluntary technical standard
> >   and technical specification development organizations which:
> >       [...]
> >       5) Makes its resulting standards and/or specifications
> >          individually available for free or for a small processing
> >          fee via the Internet.
> This paragraph in particular appears to be excessively ideological.
> How is this relevant, other than to exclude specific organizations?
> >       Open international voluntary standards bodies are defined as
> >       private sector international organizations that plan,
> >       develop, establish, or coordinate voluntary standards.
> >
> >       An organization shall be considered open and international
> >       if its standards and/or specifications development process is
> >       open to any person or organization of any nationality on
> >       equitable terms. It shall be considered voluntary if it makes
> >       no claim to compel use of its standards and specifications.
> Again, its probably adequate to exclude the ITU with only one clause,
> rather than by several clauses.
> -tjs


Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208