On Nov 10, 2008, at 18:17, Edward Lewis wrote:
#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?)
Ed, aside from the points that have already been explained to you, point 9 counteracts arguments that are likely to be made in other circles to establish/introduce some other entity to oversee the signing of the root. If/when those groups make that claim, there would be at least one emphatic statement from the Internet community refuting it.
#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.
Well please re-read my introductory notes on the latest draft. The WG does not have a common view of how to sign the root. At least that what the mood seemed to be in Dubai. This is why we've tried to focus on requirements (where we can agree hopefully) than operational detail (where there are divergent opinions). If you want to debate operational details, go ahead. But please don't do that in a way that stops the WG from formulating a response to NTIA. Or you could present those technical details in your own response to the NTIA NoI.