Re: [dns-wg] one more effort on the NTIA response

[Patrik Fältström paf@localhost]

Correct, that is the reason why #9 is there.

   Patrik

On 10 nov 2008, at 19.33, Barbara Roseman wrote:

> Ed, I believe 9 addresses some of the proposed workflows published  
> with the NOI. It was not in either the VeriSign or ICANN proposals,  
> but was, I believe, in some of the other diagrams.
> -Barb
>
>
> On 11/10/08 10:17 AM, "Edward Lewis" <Ed.Lewis@localhost wrote:
>
> At 8:57 +0000 11/10/08, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> > can I ask for your support on this latest version?
> I'd be okay with this, in general, except for two things.
>
> #1 - I'd be happier without 9 - I mean, just delete it.  (Why is it
> there?  Did someone believe there was a technical justification to
> add an organization?)
>
> #2 - I'd be happier if the list wasn't just a set of requirements but
> included some "here's a way to do it"s.  But then, this point is not
> critical.
>
> > 9. There is no technical justification to create a new organisation  
> > to
> > oversee the process of signing of the root.
> --
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 
> =-=-=-
> Edward Lewis                                                 
> +1-571-434-5468
> NeuStar
>
> Never confuse activity with progress.  Activity pays more.