Dear PSO PC colleagues,
In the view of the last emails exchanged on this list, I have looked at the
minutes of our last teleconference (7 December) to check what the decision
was regarding the request for inputs made by Mr Lynn for the elaboration of
the ICANN budget. This is the paragraph from the minutes:
>5. On the request of Mr. S. Lynn, ICANN CEO, the issue of possible contribution/recommendation
> concerning the elaboration of the ICANN Budget was thoughtfully considered. It was specified
>that PSO PC should consider the question from the point of affecting the technical aspects of protocols
>and related issues only. Azucena volunteered to provide an input on this subject.
In line with this decision, I prepared an input on behalf of the organisation I represent (ETSI) and circulated it to all of you
for comments. Even though the deadline for 10 January does not appear in the minutes, it is included in Mr Lynn email to us.
The contribution was made with full respect to the "technical dimension" of both the PSO and ETSI, thus giving higher priority
to the budget lines directly related to technical activities. Not a single comment either in favour or against coming from any
of the PSO member associations was received. In my country, "silence" means "go on".
I fully respect the different opinions of the PSO PC members on when and how the PSO PC should respond to direct requests
for opinions originated in other parts of ICANN (Board, CEO, other SOs,...) but it is hard for me to accept any suggestion on
me or ETSI braking a decision taken by the PSO PC. I am extremely respectful to decisions taken in a democratic manner.
I was not aware of any change of "rule" regarding our way of communicating with the ICANN CEO and honestly thought that the
one used so far (the PSO PC secretary, Vlad, centralises our outgoing communications indicating if a contribution was agreed
by all or only by a part of the PSO PC) was still running. What I noted in our last teleconference is that we changed the rule for the
comments to the ICANN Restructuring matters (point 3 of the Teleconference Minutes) but not for the other ones.
If it is now a majority view that each member of the PSO PC should make its inputs DIRECTLY when there is no consensus, let's
minute that decision clearly. I keep thinking that this should be a big mistake as the PSO PC should, at least, keep the principle
of having a single centre of communication (the PSO PC Secretariat) even if communicating different things. In the other hand,
neither me nor ETSI has any problem communicating directly with other parts of ICANN. It is only that we consider the other
approach as more elegant and appropriate.
Kind regards,
Azucena
Martin Duerst <duerst@W3.ORG>@pso.icann.org con fecha 14/01/2002 10:06:42
Por favor, responda a Martin Duerst <duerst@W3.ORG>
Enviado por: owner-pso-pc@pso.icann.org
Destinatarios: "Brian Moore" <brian@BWMC.DEMON.CO.UK>, "Leslie Daigle"
<leslie@THINKINGCAT.COM>, "Androuchko, Vladimir"
<vladimir.androuchko@itu.int>
CC: "pso-pc, ITU (MLIST)" <pso-pc@ties.itu.ch>
Asunto: Re: deadline for sending comments to ICANN budget
I agree with Brian and Leslie. Regards, Martin.
At 15:28 02/01/11 +0000, Brian Moore wrote:
>Yes, this is how I understood the outcome of the last conference call. I
>think that next time, as Leslie suggests, where it is agreed that the PSO
>members have differing opinions that we should inform ICANN that the PSO
has
>no opinion in the scope of its mandate and the members can send in their
own
>views.
>Brian.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Leslie Daigle" <leslie@THINKINGCAT.COM>
>To: "Androuchko, Vladimir" <vladimir.androuchko@itu.int>
>Cc: "pso-pc, ITU (MLIST)" <pso-pc@ties.itu.int>
>Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:29 PM
>Subject: Re: deadline for sending comments to ICANN budget
>
>
> > Howdy,
> >
> > It seems this has already been sent, but the text I
> > was looking for was more along the lines of:
> >
> > "Please find enclosed ... prepared by and forwarded
> > on behalf of ETSI. The PSO as a body did not find
> > any comments to make within the scope of its mandate."
> >
> > As sent, it seems like 3 of the 4 PSO members simply
> > didn't do any work, and that was certainly not the
> > position the IETF has taken.
> >
> > Truly, to reduce confusion:
> > . ETSI should have forwarded the comments itself
> > . We (the PSO) should have responded that we
> > had no comments
> >
> > Leslie.
> >
> > "Androuchko, Vladimir" wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Protocol Council Members,
> > >
> > > Please find below the draft text for your consideration to accompany
the
>Paper on the ICANN Budget, prepared by ETSI.
> > > Best regards,
> > > Vlad
> > >
> > > *************************************************
> > >
> > > Dear Stuart,
> > >
> > > Please find enclosed the comments/recommendations on the ICANN Budget
>for the financial year 2002-2003, prepared by ETSI Representatives.
> > > Other Protocol Supporting Organizations have not provided comments on
>this matter.
> > >
> > > Sincerely yours,
> > > Vladimir
> > >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Type: Microsoft Word Document
(application/msword)
> > > Part 1.2 Encoding: base64
> > > Download Status: Not downloaded with message
> >
> > --
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "An essential element of a successful journey
> > is recognizing when you have arrived."
> > -- ThinkingCat
> >
> > Leslie Daigle
> > leslie@thinkingcat.com
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >