> 2) The GP will hibernate (Ira will take some time to review the comments,
> will make generic statements like: "Very interesting suggestions from
> everybody", and so on, but no outcome in the short term).
>
This was _my_ "hoped for" outcome, allowing CORE to proceed and be seen
as a more stable organization than the US. Others are afraid that CORE
will also vacillate awaiting US action (as they have so far), and more
time and money will be wasted.
> 3) The reorganization of IANA will go on. The new IANA will try to follow
> most of the indications of the Green Paper,
Fortunately, several of the GP comments supported the IANA proposal of
Jan 13th (never announced or published as an internet-draft). So, IANA
should simply announce that it is following the program requested by the
comments, imperfect as it is.
> and has to fight for keeping the
> authority on the Root Servers (possibly, this time, with direct control of
> the A-Root).
>
I think that fight has already been won. The GP proposes giving such
to IANA, and IANA itself demonstrated that it really does have control
over the root servers, because the operators will follow IANA.
> I believe that the success of IANA in doing this is the necessary condition
> for progressing with the gTLD-MoU. In other words, the next battle is the
> recognition of IANA: if this doesn't happen, our chances to be successful
> are very low.
>
I agree. I raised this privately to the IAB in early Feb, and
publically on the IETF list in March. The IAB needs to make a formal
delegation of support to IANA, and see whether that is challenged.
Note that the IANA GP response specifically supports PAB/POC/CORE.
It is time for POC to officially request a new gTLD from IANA, and IANA
to officially say yes, and then CORE should start the servers rolling!
And I finally made time to read the final PAB response (I had commented
on an earlier draft). Nice work, Kent! One of the best written
responses!
WSimpson@UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32