RE: TAC

Very well.

In that case I propose that we end the PSO discussions after the PSO topics
are dealt with, and open a separate ad-hoc meeting of any people who wish to
discuss TAC matters.  For convenience, I propose that we use the same audio
link for the TAC discussion.

Thanks and best,
Richard


-----------------------------------------
Richard Hill
Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
International Telecommunication Union
Place des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
tel: +41 22 730 5887
FAX: +41 22 730 5853
Email: richard.hill@itu.int
Study Group 2 email: tsbsg2@itu.int
 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael StJohns [mailto:mstjohns@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 12 October 2002 3:42
> To: azucena.hernandezperez@telefonica.es; pso-pc@w3.org
> Subject: 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 Monday, 14 October 2002 03:53:06 UTC