RE: DRAFT -- minutes PSO-PC teleconference 16 October

Perfect,

Thank you,
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: Amy van der Hiel [mailto:amy@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, 29 October 2002 23:19
> To: pso-pc@w3.org
> Subject: 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-implementati
> on-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 19:50:17 UTC