- From: <azucena.hernandezperez@telefonica.es>
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 16:01:40 +0200
- To: pso-pc@w3.org
Dear all, It is clear to me that we should talk about this issue because different opinions are emerging as soon as Brian raised the point. No doubt that W3C will be one more in the rotation process and we all need to agree in the rotation mechanism. I have my own view but I am open to analyse different approaches and to agree on something. Azucena "Brian Moore" <brian@BWMC.DEMON.CO.UK>@w3.org con fecha 11/10/2002 13:37:51 Enviado por: pso-pc-request@w3.org Destinatarios: <pso-pc@w3.org> CC: Asunto: 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 > > ___________________________________________________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización está prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it. ___________________________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 11 October 2002 10:01:19 UTC