DRAFT -- minutes PSO-PC teleconference 16 October

Hello all

Below please find the draft minutes for the 16 October teleconference.

Please let me know if you have any changes or corrections.

regards,
Amy

DRAFT -- ICANN Protocol Standards Organization Protocol Council (PSO-PC)
16 October 2002, Teleconference
Reported by Amy van der Hiel, PSO-PC Secretary

Participants:
Martin Dürst, W3C Representative
Azucena Hernandez, ETSI Representative
Richard Hill, ITU Representative
Geoff Huston, IETF Representative
Tapio Kaijanen, ETSI Representative
Amy van der Hiel, W3C, PSO Secretary

Regrets:
Mike St.Johns, IETF Representative
Brian Moore, ITU-T Representative
Daniel Weitzner, W3C Representative
-----------------
1.Comments on review of ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee "Final" 
Implementation Report
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/final-implementation-report-02oct02.htm

Geoff  noted that there was an email interchange via the pso-pc@w3.org list 
and that the PC decided that each organization would send their own 
responses to ICANN.  Richard, Azucena and Martin agreed.

2. Location/date next PSO General Assembly:
Martin noted that since the W3C has taken over the Secretariat it would be 
their responsibility to organize a General Assembly (GA) for this year.  He 
said that while it is probably too early to announce anything publicly, it 
would be good for the PC  to have an idea of if and when this should take 
place.   He noted the W3C looked at several options internally: 1. hold the 
meeting in conjunction with the W3C Technical Plenary meeting (Boston, 3-8 
March 2003);  2. hold the meeting in conjunction with the W3C Advisory 
Committee meeting, co-located with the WWW2003 conference (Budapest,  18-20 
May 2003); or 3. decide that because the PSO will be ending that there is 
no need to hold a GA.  Richard noted that he didn't detect support for 
holding a GA when the issue was raised on the mailing list.  Martin agreed, 
and said that if the consensus was that the PC didn't need to hold a GA, it 
would be acceptable to the W3C.

Geoff noted it was likely that the PSO will not exist by March/ May 2003. 
He said that the issue of whether the TAC will need a GA is an open 
question but that given ICANN's time table in accepting the E&R report and 
after looking at draft description of the TAC, he sees nothing which 
warrants a GA so that it may not be necessary to plan for a GA at this 
time.  Azucena agreed and suggested that a date could be reserved as a 
practical arrangement rather than a formal statement in case the TAC were 
to decide to have an open forum in a certain time of year.  Martin agreed 
with Geoff's comments and so it may not be necessary to plan for a GA at 
this time.  Martin also noted that the W3C doesn't have their own meeting 
room facilities so reserving space for a meeting has financial 
consequences.  Richard proposed that the PC decide that there will be no 
PSO GA, and no plans for a TAC GA at this time.  Geoff, Azucena and Martin 
agreed.

3. Draft of Status Report:
Amy noted she had sent a Draft of the PSO Status Report 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/pso-pc/2002Oct/0024.html to the 
pso-pc@w3.org email list.   Richard, Geoff, Martin and Azucena said that 
the report was fine.  Richard asked the PC whether they thought he should 
present the report in Shanghai.  Azucena said yes.  Richard said he didn't 
have any problems giving the report if no one objected that an ITU-T 
representative did so.  Geoff said he supported the notion if Richard was 
willing.  Richard agreed and asked Amy to make slides of the report and 
send them to ICANN.  Amy asked if she could do them as HTML, and Richard 
agreed. Amy accepted the task.

4.  Additional agenda item: Dissolution of the PSO by ICANN:
Geoff stated that it seemed certain that the PSO will cease to exist and 
that as the SDOs have signed the MoU with ICANN,  there is an question of 
whether there would need to be some formality involved in the dissolution 
of the PSO. Richard said he was glad Geoff raised the issue and said that 
as the MoU could be construed as a contract, all parties would have to 
agree to dissolve it.  He noted all PC members except the W3C had given 
comments in support of the dissolution of the PSO.  He suggested that one 
option would be to request ICANN formally dissolve the PSO.  Azucena said 
that until the reform is closed and the process is in effect, ETSI does not 
support any active movement by the PC toward ending the PSO.  She stated 
their first priority was to get clear resolution from ICANN about which 
bodies would disappear, and which would change.  She noted when this 
happens, then action could be taken, but until that point, ETSI was in 
favor of waiting to hear the decision of the ICANN board.  Richard noted 
that it might be good to wait until ICANN adopts the new by-laws and then, 
at that point, the PC could discuss the MoU again.  Geoff stated he was 
happy to wait but that it would be good to give some thought to whether the 
PSO would need to formally dissolve as there are no exit clauses in the MoU 
and it is an open question as to how the entity would end.  Richard noted 
that so long as there is agreement between all parties, the PSO can be 
dissolved.  Azucena stated that the ICANN should be the initiator of all 
solutions, as they are the initiator of the creation of the PSO.  Martin 
said it was good to start the discussion of this issue now,  that he 
supported Richard's position and that it is a good idea to make sure that 
ICANN doesn't forget the dissolution of the PSO. He suggested waiting until 
ICANN has formally decided what is to happen to the PSO and at that point, 
let ICANN know if it  further action seems warranted.  Richard noted that 
since he'll be in Shanghai he could have a word with Stuart and Louis to 
ask if they have a plan for the dissolution of the PSO.  If they 
don't  have a plan, he suggested that then Amy could send a letter from the 
PSO to ICANN with the group's questions about dissolution.  Geoff said that 
the IAB did ask Stuart about the issue but they didn't get a very clear 
answer.  He noted it would be worthwhile to check with Stuart.  Azucena 
stated that ETSI considers that it's not their job to dissolve a body (the 
PSO) which is part of ICANN and that this decision  should come from ICANN, 
not the SDOs as it is ICANN's job to determine the process for all 
organizations affected.  Richard said it wasn't exactly the same because 
other ICANN groups exist only through the bylaws and when the bylaws 
change, they will change, but the PSO exists through the MoU as well as the 
by-laws. Azucena said that ETSI would sign whatever dissolution papers are 
needed but they don't think they should be the ones initiating the process 
to dissolve and that they prefer that ICANN define the way the group 
dissolves.  Tapio agreed that the PC should continue as it has and look for 
further information from ICANN via the email lists.  The PC agreed to this 
approach.

Martin asked whether there would be another PSO teleconference.  Azucena 
said that up to the moment the PSO is dissolved, the PC has the same 
obligations and so suggested holding a teleconference.  She noted in the 
event that there is a decision about the E&R announced in Shanghai,  the 
next teleconference would be an appropriate time to make decisions about 
dissolutions, etc.

The next teleconference was scheduled for Friday 22 November at 12:00 UTC.

Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 17:15:42 UTC