A new draft of the PSO statement

Dear PSO PC colleagues,

At this moment in time I am a little bit lost on the various proposed
paragraphs and the level of support on each of them. I have some
difficulties on understanding the latest input from Richard as its content
is identical to the statement sent by the IAB to ICANN some months ago
which was NOT supported by the PSO.

Regarding the issue of standing committee versus ad-hoc group, ETSI has
always been in favour of identifying the bodies (the 4 already identified
seem to cover a whole range of expertise), giving them equal recognition,
and letting them use their internal procedures to get a technical view on
whatever technical issue in under study.

With your permision and subject to confirmation from the different PSO
organizations, my view of what supports who is as follows:

POSITION STATEMENT FROM THE PSO ON TAC:

- 1st & 2nd paragraph: introduction, supported by all

"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.

-3rd paragraph: proposed by the IETF, supported by IETF,ITU, ETSI and
W3C????

"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."

-4th paragraph: new proposed by ETSI supported by ?????

"As a result of the previous information, the PSO can not understand the
reason why it is proposed that the IAB should nominate double number of
positions to TAC than the other three peer organizations."

- 5th paragraph: proposed by the ITU, supported by IETF?????, not supported
by ETSI as it is written.

"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."

- 6th & 7th paragraphs: proposed by the ITU, supported by ETSI, under
consultation in IAB, what about W3C???

"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."

I hope to have captured all the exchange of mails.
Kind regards,
Azucena




"Hill, Richard" <richard.hill@itu.int>@w3.org con fecha 04/09/2002 11:46:30

Enviado por:   pso-pc-request@w3.org


Destinatarios: "'Geoff Huston'" <gih@telstra.net>, Azucena Hernandez
      Perez/INFR/TESA@Telefonica, pso-pc@w3.org
CC:
Asunto:   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
>




___________________________________________________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener
información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario
indicado, queda notificado de que la utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin
autorización está prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha
recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique
inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.


This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain
information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege.
If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly
prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please
immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it.
___________________________________________________________________________

Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 08:36:28 UTC