Re: A new draft of the PSO statement

Just a few, currently personal, thoughts, below:

At 14:33 02/09/04 +0200, azucena.hernandezperez@telefonica.es wrote:

>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.

okay for me.

Maybe we can also say that moving from a separate organization,
small and therefore with a comparatively high overhead, to a
Committee is a good thing.


>-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."

This should be okay.


>-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."

don't think we have agreed on this.


>- 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."

I'm not exactly sure here. See below why.


>- 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.

I personally see some conflict between representing organizations and
technical discussions. I think the second sentence is good, but the
first sentence leads too much to us just coming with fixed positions
to the table, without being able to discuss things much.

I somewhat have the idea of a flexible committee, where there would be
standing representatives from the relevant organizations, but these
could be replaced by alternates with experience on a specific topic.
In this way, the experts from each organization could talk to each
other directly and openly, get a better mutual understanding, and
be much better able to give good feedback to ICANN (which may of
course in many cases be 'it depends' or 'we don't know', or 'we
disagree', but with a better technical foundation and less
emphasis on organizational positions.)

So in summary, I'm looking for the best optimal combination between
formal relationships to organizations with experience and flexible
discussions.


>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."

My personal thoughts:

- I'm not sure if and how exactly the nomcom process will work.
   But having that working well is a precondition.
- One good consequence of having additional people on the committee
   may be that we end up with less ties. In the short period I'm on
   the pso-pc, and with the few issues we have discussed, I have seen
   too many ties.
- There definitely is technical expertize outside our organizations.
   But it's not clear that three representatives selected through
   the nomcom process could bring that in.

Regards,    Martin.


>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
>informaci$B…O(B privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario
>indicado, queda notificado de que la utilizaci$B…O(B, divulgaci$B…O(B y/o copia sin
>autorizaci$B…O(B est$Ba(Bprohibida en virtud de la legislaci$B…O(B vigente. Si ha
>recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique
>inmediatamente por esta misma v$ByB(B y proceda a su destrucci$B…O(B.
>
>
>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 03:21:25 UTC