RE: A new draft of the PSO statement

I would support the 4th paragraph proposed by ETSI.

Regarding the 5th paragraph, I did not recall that it had already been
discussed in PSO PC, but I still think that it makes sense today.  But we
should wait for Brian Moore's input before saying that it is supported by
ITU, it was just a proposal from me.  Perhaps ETSI could suggest some
wording changes that would allow ETSI to support something along these
lines?

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: azucena.hernandezperez@telefonica.es
> [mailto:azucena.hernandezperez@telefonica.es]
> Sent: Wednesday, 04 September 2002 14:33
> To: pso-pc@w3.org
> Subject: 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-implementat
> ion-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 10:04:22 UTC