Re: TAC

Hello Brian,

First, given the fact that the PSO and the TAC are not the same,
I'm not exactly sure why we should discuss any TAC matters on the
PSO teleconference. If we assume that because of the similarities
between the PSO and the TAC, we can just gradually move from one
to the other, then we should 1) make this assumption explicit
and be sure we are on the right track with it, and 2) discuss
other topics related to this move, e.g. to what extent will the
TAC need a similar infrastructure to the PSO, and to what extent
will this be reduced or different.

With respect to the specific question on how to organize the
liaison rotation, the TAC will also have to appoint a delegate
to the nominating committee, not from the same organization.
To some extent, therefore, these two appointments will have
to be considered together.

As far as arguments for who should start the rotation go,
taking into account the fact that IETF/IAB has a permanent
liaison may be less relevant than which organization is currently
represented on the board. The board representation will
change, whereas the IETF/IAB liaison will stay. Also,
there is the question of what the role of the liaison should be.

In any case, I have to say that I also was surprised by Brian's
proposal; I especially wonder why the W3C was just 'forgotten'.

Regards,    Martin.

At 12:37 02/10/11 +0100, Brian Moore wrote:

>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 09:14:03 UTC