RE: [pso-pc] <none>

In addition to Jeff's comments below, I suggest that we integrate a
slighltly edited version of the IAB statement sent previously by Jeff,
namely (the only change is substituting PSO PC for IAB):


"The PSO PC would like to note that technical issues often require specific 
expertise to properly address and a standing committee would, by necessity, 
not be able to bring appropriate levels of expertise to every issue that 
may be referred to the committee. There is also the weakness of having a 
technical committee operate under an assumption that differences of 
perspective should be resolved within the committee, and that a committee 
would be driven by a need to arrive at a single answer, whereas the issue 
of evaluating alternate technically feasible solutions often has a 
significant policy component. The concept of a standing committee exposes 
these weaknesses, whereas the alternative of using a number of technically 
focussed organizations and individuals on an ad hoc basis to provide 
comment upon request should be considered by ICANN."

I would proposed to insert this just before the paragraph that current
starts "TAC members are representatives ..."

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: Geoff Huston [mailto:gih@telstra.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, 04 September 2002 10:36
> To: azucena.hernandezperez@telefonica.es; pso-pc@w3.org
> Subject: 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-implementa
> tion-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 05:48:18 UTC