Re: [pso-pc] <none>

Azucena,

Thanks for preparing this draft.

I have 2 comments to make:

At 10:27 AM 9/4/2002 +0200, azucena.hernandezperez@telefonica.es wrote:
>Dear PSO PC colleagues,
>
>As agreed yesterday in our teleconference, a draft response from the PSO to
>the latest report from the ICANN ERC has been kindly prepared by Richard
>Hill.
>
>He has asked me to circulate it for comments.
>
>PROPOSED PSO PC STATEMENT:
>
>The PSO PC has reviewed the sections on the proposed Technical Advisory
>Committee (TAC) in the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) Second
>Interim Implementation Report at:
>
>
>http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02s
>
>ep02.htm
>
>The PSO PC thanks the ERC for its extensive work and the clear and
>comprehensive report.  It generally supports the proposals of the ERC with
>respect to TAC, with the exceptions noted below.
>
>The PSO notes that IAB itself nominates people to represent IETF in other
>bodies, so it is not appropriate to include both IETF and IAB as members of
>TAC.

I would like to suggest that this is not an accurate summary of the position
I described in our call. A more accurate summary would be:

"The PSO has been informed that the IAB undertakes the role of nominating
external liaisons for the IETF, and interpreting this in the context of the 
proposed
arrangements relating to the membership of the TAC, it is noted that the IAB
would logically have the role of nominating 4 positions to the TAC."

I cannot agree with a position that this is "not appropriate". As I 
indicated on the
call the clarification I provided was information without value judgement as to
the appropriateness or otherwise.


>TAC members are representatives of their respective organizations and their
>role is to act as doorways into the respective pools of expertise, to help
>ICANN.  TAC should not be seen as a group of individual experts meeting
>amongst each other to make technical decisions.

>In that light, it is not clear why the membership of TAC should be expanded
>to include members nominated by the NomCom.  Unless some particular reason
>is given, the PSO PC proposes that the membership of TAC consist of two
>representatives from each of the member organizations, which at this time
>are ETSI, IETF, ITU, and W3C.

At this point the IAB has not considered this statement. I will check with the
IAB regarding this comment and report back.


kind regards,

    Geoff

Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 05:37:24 UTC