[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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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.
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208