Re: TAC

Geoff,
Thanks for comment. The TAC will have to set up a rotation method for
providing liaison to the Board so my feeling is that it is best to start
thinking about such things sooner rather than later. The Board will change
and the argument that we should start the rotation taking account of current
Board members put forward by the PSO in my mind is not relevant.
Anyway I would be interested in hearing other views.
Regards,
Brian.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Huston" <gih@telstra.net>
To: "Brian Moore" <brian@BWMC.DEMON.CO.UK>; <pso-pc@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: TAC


> I am not entirely comfortable with this proposal. One could argue that at
> this point
> in time it is the W3C's "turn" for such a nomination. Given that there is
> already
> an ETSI and an ITU-T and an IETF nomination sitting on the Board then
> the case of a W3C nomination appears to be far more compelling than that
of
> ETSI
> or the ITU.
>
> Brian, I would be interested to understand your reasoning behind
> your proposal given the above observations.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>     Geoff Huston
>
>
>
>
> At 11:40 AM 10/11/2002 +0100, Brian Moore wrote:
> >Dear all,
> >On the assumption that ICANN will adopt the final proposals from the
> >Evolution and Reform Committee it would be a good idea for us to start
> >considering how to fulfil the requirement for the TAC to appoint a
> >rotating non-voting liaison member to
> >the ICANN Board.  Given that IETF/IAB has a permanent non-voting liaison,
> >it would seem appropriate that the first and second TAC liaisons come
from
> >ETSI and ITU-T. Perhaps this could be discussed on the 16th.
> >Brian.
> >
> >B W Moore
> >Lucent Technologies
> >Tel: +44 1206 762335
> >Fax: +44 1206 762336
>
>

Received on Friday, 11 October 2002 07:41:40 UTC