ETSI proposed statement about TAC

Dear PSO PC colleagues,

Following Brian´s suggestion to return back to the agreed action and
prepare independent statements on each organization and try to find common
points afterwards, please find below the ETSI proposed text to be input to
the ICANN ERC:

"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 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."

"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. The PSO supports
equal treatment to all the identified standards organizations (ETSI, IETF,
ITU-T and W3C) and the nomination of 2 candidates per organizations seems
to be an appropriate figure.

"The PSO considers that 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."

So far the ETSI proposal. Of course, every appearance of the term "PSO"
will change into "ETSI" if not commonly agreed.
Kind regards,
Azucena

*********************************************************
Azucena Hernandez
Telefonica de España
 Desarrollo de Red
Tel: +34 91 5846842
Fax: +34 91 5846843
GSM: +34 609425506
E-Mail: azucena.hernandezperez@telefonica.es
***********************************************************

___________________________________________________________________________

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 Thursday, 5 September 2002 02:28:44 UTC