[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [IFWP] The Sims-Auerbach Correspondence (was: The CPT- ICANN Correspondence
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, IFWP Mailing List <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [IFWP] The Sims-Auerbach Correspondence (was: The CPT- ICANN Correspondence
- From: Greg Skinner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> And let's be clear about this -- this now means that the ICANN board, if
> it wanted to, has the power to reach into things like protocol parameter
> assignments. ICANN's board, could, for example, change a UDP or TCP port
> assignment or it could refuse to grant an algorithm ID for an encryption
> protocol it doesn't like. Yes, that's unlikely, but the potential power
> is there.
As in my argument with Richard regarding the addition of new TLDs to the
root, I can't see anything like this happening without significant support
from the Internet community, not just the technical community but people
who use the protocols.
I think it's worth asking questions like "under what conditions would the
Internet community be likely to go along with an ICANN proposal?"