At 22:50 02/01/2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
It's traditional, and I think fair. I'll ask the IAD to see if we
can get the scale
adjusted.
John Klensin's note does a very nice job of suggesting why it is not
*automatically* the right thing to do.
In particular, his line of analysis points out the need to a) have
an appropriate criterion, and b) apply it consistently.
The relationship with CNRI had characteristics vastly different from
those with Neustar.
My personal opinion about the listing is that I don't know what is
right. That's why I like John's effort to approach the question in
terms of goals and balance, rather than simply invoking prior practise.
NeuStar is the ".us" Registy and has entered into an open root
agreement with the GSMA, supporting the ".gprs" TLD. That the IETF
pays to host a link to them may certainly be perceived as a political
signal. After Harald's, John's and your mails, to maintain that link
and the size of the logo will be perceived as a political RFC 3935
decision. Three choices are possibles (keep it, reduce it, remove
it). All now have a meaning.
It would probably be advisable that NeuStar proposes by its own to
remove mention and link from the welcome page. A links to a "NeuStar
Secretariat" page (not their main commercial page) in the IASA page
seems adequate.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf