RE: DRAFT -- minutes PSO-PC teleconference 16 October

fine by me

  Geoff

At 01:49 AM 10/30/2002 +0100, richard.hill@itu.int wrote:

>Perfect,
>
>Thank you,
>Richard
>
>
>-----------------------------------------
>Richard Hill
>Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
>International Telecommunication Union
>Place des Nations
>CH-1211 Geneva 20
>Switzerland
>tel: +41 22 730 5887
>FAX: +41 22 730 5853
>Email: richard.hill@itu.int
>Study Group 2 email: tsbsg2@itu.int
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Amy van der Hiel [mailto:amy@w3.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 29 October 2002 23:19
> > To: pso-pc@w3.org
> > Subject: DRAFT -- minutes PSO-PC teleconference 16 October
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello all
> >
> > Below please find the draft minutes for the 16 October teleconference.
> >
> > Please let me know if you have any changes or corrections.
> >
> > regards,
> > Amy
> >
> > DRAFT -- ICANN Protocol Standards Organization Protocol
> > Council (PSO-PC)
> > 16 October 2002, Teleconference
> > Reported by Amy van der Hiel, PSO-PC Secretary
> >
> > Participants:
> > Martin Dürst, W3C Representative
> > Azucena Hernandez, ETSI Representative
> > Richard Hill, ITU Representative
> > Geoff Huston, IETF Representative
> > Tapio Kaijanen, ETSI Representative
> > Amy van der Hiel, W3C, PSO Secretary
> >
> > Regrets:
> > Mike St.Johns, IETF Representative
> > Brian Moore, ITU-T Representative
> > Daniel Weitzner, W3C Representative
> > -----------------
> > 1.Comments on review of ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee "Final"
> > Implementation Report
> > http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/final-implementati
> > on-report-02oct02.htm
> >
> > Geoff  noted that there was an email interchange via the
> > pso-pc@w3.org list
> > and that the PC decided that each organization would send their own
> > responses to ICANN.  Richard, Azucena and Martin agreed.
> >
> > 2. Location/date next PSO General Assembly:
> > Martin noted that since the W3C has taken over the
> > Secretariat it would be
> > their responsibility to organize a General Assembly (GA) for
> > this year.  He
> > said that while it is probably too early to announce anything
> > publicly, it
> > would be good for the PC  to have an idea of if and when this
> > should take
> > place.   He noted the W3C looked at several options
> > internally: 1. hold the
> > meeting in conjunction with the W3C Technical Plenary meeting
> > (Boston, 3-8
> > March 2003);  2. hold the meeting in conjunction with the W3C
> > Advisory
> > Committee meeting, co-located with the WWW2003 conference
> > (Budapest,  18-20
> > May 2003); or 3. decide that because the PSO will be ending
> > that there is
> > no need to hold a GA.  Richard noted that he didn't detect
> > support for
> > holding a GA when the issue was raised on the mailing list.
> > Martin agreed,
> > and said that if the consensus was that the PC didn't need to
> > hold a GA, it
> > would be acceptable to the W3C.
> >
> > Geoff noted it was likely that the PSO will not exist by
> > March/ May 2003.
> > He said that the issue of whether the TAC will need a GA is an open
> > question but that given ICANN's time table in accepting the
> > E&R report and
> > after looking at draft description of the TAC, he sees nothing which
> > warrants a GA so that it may not be necessary to plan for a
> > GA at this
> > time.  Azucena agreed and suggested that a date could be
> > reserved as a
> > practical arrangement rather than a formal statement in case
> > the TAC were
> > to decide to have an open forum in a certain time of year.
> > Martin agreed
> > with Geoff's comments and so it may not be necessary to plan
> > for a GA at
> > this time.  Martin also noted that the W3C doesn't have their
> > own meeting
> > room facilities so reserving space for a meeting has financial
> > consequences.  Richard proposed that the PC decide that there
> > will be no
> > PSO GA, and no plans for a TAC GA at this time.  Geoff,
> > Azucena and Martin
> > agreed.
> >
> > 3. Draft of Status Report:
> > Amy noted she had sent a Draft of the PSO Status Report
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/pso-pc/2002Oct/0024.html to the
> > pso-pc@w3.org email list.   Richard, Geoff, Martin and
> > Azucena said that
> > the report was fine.  Richard asked the PC whether they
> > thought he should
> > present the report in Shanghai.  Azucena said yes.  Richard
> > said he didn't
> > have any problems giving the report if no one objected that an ITU-T
> > representative did so.  Geoff said he supported the notion if
> > Richard was
> > willing.  Richard agreed and asked Amy to make slides of the
> > report and
> > send them to ICANN.  Amy asked if she could do them as HTML,
> > and Richard
> > agreed. Amy accepted the task.
> >
> > 4.  Additional agenda item: Dissolution of the PSO by ICANN:
> > Geoff stated that it seemed certain that the PSO will cease
> > to exist and
> > that as the SDOs have signed the MoU with ICANN,  there is an
> > question of
> > whether there would need to be some formality involved in the
> > dissolution
> > of the PSO. Richard said he was glad Geoff raised the issue
> > and said that
> > as the MoU could be construed as a contract, all parties
> > would have to
> > agree to dissolve it.  He noted all PC members except the W3C
> > had given
> > comments in support of the dissolution of the PSO.  He
> > suggested that one
> > option would be to request ICANN formally dissolve the PSO.
> > Azucena said
> > that until the reform is closed and the process is in effect,
> > ETSI does not
> > support any active movement by the PC toward ending the PSO.
> > She stated
> > their first priority was to get clear resolution from ICANN
> > about which
> > bodies would disappear, and which would change.  She noted when this
> > happens, then action could be taken, but until that point,
> > ETSI was in
> > favor of waiting to hear the decision of the ICANN board.
> > Richard noted
> > that it might be good to wait until ICANN adopts the new
> > by-laws and then,
> > at that point, the PC could discuss the MoU again.  Geoff
> > stated he was
> > happy to wait but that it would be good to give some thought
> > to whether the
> > PSO would need to formally dissolve as there are no exit
> > clauses in the MoU
> > and it is an open question as to how the entity would end.
> > Richard noted
> > that so long as there is agreement between all parties, the
> > PSO can be
> > dissolved.  Azucena stated that the ICANN should be the
> > initiator of all
> > solutions, as they are the initiator of the creation of the
> > PSO.  Martin
> > said it was good to start the discussion of this issue now,  that he
> > supported Richard's position and that it is a good idea to
> > make sure that
> > ICANN doesn't forget the dissolution of the PSO. He suggested
> > waiting until
> > ICANN has formally decided what is to happen to the PSO and
> > at that point,
> > let ICANN know if it  further action seems warranted.
> > Richard noted that
> > since he'll be in Shanghai he could have a word with Stuart
> > and Louis to
> > ask if they have a plan for the dissolution of the PSO.  If they
> > don't  have a plan, he suggested that then Amy could send a
> > letter from the
> > PSO to ICANN with the group's questions about dissolution.
> > Geoff said that
> > the IAB did ask Stuart about the issue but they didn't get a
> > very clear
> > answer.  He noted it would be worthwhile to check with
> > Stuart.  Azucena
> > stated that ETSI considers that it's not their job to
> > dissolve a body (the
> > PSO) which is part of ICANN and that this decision  should
> > come from ICANN,
> > not the SDOs as it is ICANN's job to determine the process for all
> > organizations affected.  Richard said it wasn't exactly the
> > same because
> > other ICANN groups exist only through the bylaws and when the bylaws
> > change, they will change, but the PSO exists through the MoU
> > as well as the
> > by-laws. Azucena said that ETSI would sign whatever
> > dissolution papers are
> > needed but they don't think they should be the ones
> > initiating the process
> > to dissolve and that they prefer that ICANN define the way the group
> > dissolves.  Tapio agreed that the PC should continue as it
> > has and look for
> > further information from ICANN via the email lists.  The PC
> > agreed to this
> > approach.
> >
> > Martin asked whether there would be another PSO
> > teleconference.  Azucena
> > said that up to the moment the PSO is dissolved, the PC has the same
> > obligations and so suggested holding a teleconference.  She
> > noted in the
> > event that there is a decision about the E&R announced in
> > Shanghai,  the
> > next teleconference would be an appropriate time to make
> > decisions about
> > dissolutions, etc.
> >
> > The next teleconference was scheduled for Friday 22 November
> > at 12:00 UTC.
> >

Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 20:21:35 UTC