Re: TAC

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