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

Hello Amy,

Many thanks for your very nice work! Just some small comments:

At 17:18 02/10/29 -0500, Amy van der Hiel wrote:

>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 D$B—S(Bst, 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-02o 
>ct02.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);

The 8th is a Saturday. Do we run until Saturday? Is it necessary
to give the exact dates?


>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.


- Please make more and smaller paragraphs, in particular for 4.

>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.

'know if it' seems strange. 'know if'?

Regards,    Martin.


>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 Wednesday, 30 October 2002 00:36:59 UTC