Re: TAC

It is clear to me that this topic is inappropriate for the current 
PSO.  The PSO is NOT the TAC.  The members of the current PSO may or may 
not be part of a TAC what ever its final form may be - but its arrogant to 
try and impose a PSO organizational view on a group that doesn't even exist 
as of yet.

Let the TAC when formed deal with TAC business if that is within their 
charter.  It is clearly even further outside the PSO's charter than the 
discussion of policy related to the TAC I asked for cloture on previously.

Please review section 4 of ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2691.txt the ICANN 
PSO MOU and please lets limit our discussions to matters within the scope 
described in that section.

Mike



At 04:01 PM 10/11/2002 +0200, azucena.hernandezperez@telefonica.es wrote:

>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 21:43:30 UTC