Maggie Improving the existing relationships is indeed a continued goal, I think Mark's remarks refer to new relationships (currently outside of ICANN recognition). We need to clarify this. I have mixed views over the expansion of the SSAC, although recognition that on some particular security aspects ISP involvement would be helpful is potentially a good move. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: maggie.mansourkia@verizon.com [mailto:maggie.mansourkia@verizon.com] Sent: 14 July 2006 14:57 To: Holmes,AR,Tony,CXM R Cc: greg_ruth@yahoo.com; ispcp@icann.org; mcfadden@21st-century-texts.com; olivier.muron@orange-ft.com; owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org; yukari@nic.ad.jp Subject: RE: [ispcp] ISPCP Draft Comments on US Government ICANN MoU Inquiry I hope to send comments soon. I did want to check the group's pulse on the notion that no changes are necessary in the relationships with other groups? It seems to me that ICANN could benefit in working better (perhaps more formally?) with the IETF and other more "grown up" type groups? And do we think a larger SSAC to include ISP experts would be beneficial? Magnolia Mansourkia Chief Privacy Counsel Verizon Communications 703-351-3199 Voice 703-351-3653 Fax 202-744-3745 Mobile tony.ar.holmes@bt.com Sent by: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org 07/14/2006 09:44 AM To greg_ruth@yahoo.com, mcfadden@21st-century-texts.com, ispcp@icann.org, olivier.muron@orange-ft.com, yukari@nic.ad.jp cc Subject RE: [ispcp] ISPCP Draft Comments on US Government ICANN MoU Inquiry Greg I support your sentiments on the RS operations (I also like 'tragic attempt' but 'misguided' is far more diplomatic though not so explanatory, so suggest we make that change). I hope more comments will be forthcoming from others, or is Mark's draft so good that it's supported in its totality? If so - great job Mark! Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Ruth Sent: 14 July 2006 14:35 To: mcfadden@21st-century-texts.com; ispcp@icann.org; olivier.muron@orange-ft.com; Yukari Takayama Subject: Re: [ispcp] ISPCP Draft Comments on US Government ICANN MoU Inquiry Mark (et al), I like your draft. We might replace "tragic attempt" with "misguided attempt" - although I can think of other, more juicy adjectives ;-) If we would like to comment on the unsatisfactory informality of current arrangements with root server operators, may I suggest something like the following: The current administration of the DNS root depends on distributed and redundant operation of the root name servers by a dozen independent organizations. Although this system's performance has been acceptable to date, it is remarkable that it is based entirely on informal agreements with the operators. This threatens to undermine the credibility of ICANN as a legitimate, responsible custodian of the DNS. The DNS has become vital to international electronic communication and commerce and the root is the lynchpin of the entire system. Surely more business-like arrangements are called for in order to ensure the stability and security of the DNS root in the future. If ICANN is to convince the international community that it is competent and worthy of the authority it bears, it must operate in a more professional fashion. Feel free to change this in any way you like to make it fit into the document. Comments? Greg __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com