DRAFT minutes for the 3 September teleconference

Hello all --

Below please find a draft of the minutes of the teleconference on 3 September.

The final minutes can be made more concise, I just wanted to make sure that 
in this draft, I clearly described the issues.  Please forward any 
suggestions or corrections.  Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Amy

-----------------
ICANN Protocol Standards Organization (PSO)
3 September, 2002 Teleconference

Reported by: Amy van der Hiel, PSO-PC Secretary as of September 2002


Participants:
Martin Dürst, W3C Representative
Azucena Hernandez, ETSI Representative
Geoff Huston, IETF Representative
Tapio Kaijanen, ETSI Representative
Brian Moore, ITU-T Representative
Amy van der Hiel, PSO-PC Secretary, W3C

Regrets:
Richard Hill, ITU-T Representative
Michael St.Johns, IETF Representative
Daniel Weitzner, W3C Representative

1. Martin Dürst summarized the transfer of PSO mailing lists and web sites 
from the ITU to W3C:

Martin stated that as of 3 September, the transfer was complete and the 
settings done. He noted that the transfer should not have been too 
difficult (just two mailing lists and a small web site), but that each 
organization’s set ups are a little different and there were some serious 
problems (lost mailing headers, copying mail archives, missing files, etc) 
in transferring from one site to another. He suggested that if the PSO 
lasts another year and there must be another transfer, the easiest and most 
stable solution would be to transfer the site and lists permanently to ICANN.

Azucena noted that the transfer seemed quick and clean and congratulated 
the ITU and W3C.  Geoff and Brian agreed.  Brian noted that the PSO could 
come back to Martin’s idea for the transfer in the future.

2.  Brian Moore reviewed the ITU comments on ICANN reform
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/pso-pc/2000-2002/msg00664.html

Brian noted that the ITU put into record their concerns and interest in 
keeping good relationships going and that the ITU had seen the latest 
proposals on the TAC.
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02sep02.htm#2D2

Brian noted that the latest proposal states that the TAC will consist of 
initially ten members with two nominations each from ETSI, ITU-T, W3C, 
IETF, and IAB and later three other persons with a strong technical 
background.  He said the TAC may not be very representative of the 
standards world if both the IETF and IAB have the opportunity to nominate 
people and if the three people with strong technical background also come 
from the IETF community.

Geoff noted that according to it’s charter, the IAB has responsibility for 
external liaison for the IETF.  He stressed that any answer was informal at 
this stage, but that if the IETF were to liaise with the TAC, the IAB would 
take that role and that the delineation, with regard to external 
relations,  should be more clear in the report.

Azucena noted that ETSI has only had a couple of days to discuss the 
issue.  She said that they were asked to prepare a draft, and that their 
concerns were similar to Brian’s. She said that she saw no reason why the 
IETF and IAB should appear as separate organizations if the IAB represents 
external relations of the IETF.  She noted that ETSI was going to suggest 
keeping  the previous proposal of two representatives from the existing 
bodies in the PSO, especially if the IETF representative considers that 
having a fifth body is too much.

Geoff noted he did not say it was too much, he just noted that it is the 
IAB’s role in the IETF is to form external liaisons and therefore it would 
be the IAB's role to nominate individuals.  He said that he understands 
what the ITU-T and ETSI are saying but cannot convey a position from IETF 
at this time.

Brian thanked Geoff and noted that the ITU-T would also work on comments to 
the review committee and that the understanding Geoff described will help 
them with a modification of the proposal.

Martin noted that the W3C doesn't have position yet, as they just received 
the document. He said he was a little surprised that Brian suggested that 
the three additional members with a strong technical background would come 
from an IETF related constituency.  He noted that it could be possible that 
people with strong technical experience would come from the IETF community 
but pointed out that it's good to have expert people, wherever they come 
from.  Brian noted he was merely making an observation, not suggesting that 
this would be the outcome, just that it could turn out that way if the 
composition of the nominating board considers votes from both the IETF and IAB.

Geoff read out loud a section of the IAB submission to ICANN on the topic 
of the Technical Advisory Committee and its composition.  "The IAB 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 
focused organizations and individuals on an ad hoc basis to provide comment 
upon request should be considered by ICANN."

Brian said that the ITU-T position was very much along the same line and 
that they don't anticipate that individuals would sit in a room and 
pontificate on technical issues but rather act as a window into larger 
areas of expertise and consult with their people and come back with 
ideas.  Azucena agreed that individuals that represent an organization in 
the TAC don't need to be the ones who give technical advice and that the 
important role is to be the gate to take the problem into the community and 
then bring ideas back to ICANN.  She noted that ETSI would prefer 
representatives who would give good advice supported by their community 
rather than one single technical expert or Einstein. They want to make sure 
that representation is fair and that the same chance is given to different 
communities. ETSI did not agree with the idea that technical people would 
be chosen on a case by case basis but rather that they should be 
identifiable representatives to channel advice into community. She noted 
that ETSI were a little unhappy with the idea that the three technical 
people would be chosen by the nominating committee for the TAC, but that it 
would be good if geographic diversity were encouraged in the choices, 
especially areas other than just North America and Europe.

Geoff proposed that ETSI, ITU-T, W3C and IETF send drafts of their comments 
to ICANN to PSO to try to find a common ground about making sure the right 
people are able, through their organizations, to respond to ICANN issues.

Brian agreed and said he would work with Richard to send to a draft to the 
PSO.  Azucena agreed and said that ETSI would prepare comments, and then 
after seeing the papers, everyone could look for common ground.  Geoff 
suggested that a deadline of 25 September.  Brian suggested that the group 
try forward their statements within the week.  Amy agreed to look at the 
statements and to work on a draft synthesizing the common ideas, to send to 
the PSO, in the week after that.

3. The PSO reviewed two nominees to the ICANN board - Francisco da Silva 
and Paul Hoffman.

Brian noted that the PSO had agreed to try to reach a decision by 16 
September and suggested that the attendees try to reach an agreement during 
the teleconference or put something into action.  He noted that in the 
past, proxies had been allowed and that candidates had been reviewed by way 
of submitted information but could be asked to complete an additional 
questionnaire, if further information was needed.

Azucena agreed and said her preference was to deal with the nominations 
during the teleconference so that the name of whomever was chosen could go 
forward to ICANN.  Brian said that he was able to discuss the candidates, 
that he had discussed the issue with Richard, and he could if necessary, 
vote that day.  Geoff said that the IAB has requested that both he and 
Michael St.Johns abstain from voting but that the group should proceed 
onward with the process.  He stated that this abstention was without 
prejudice or comment on the suitability of the candidates, but rather 
related to perception of the PSO as winding-up.

Martin said that he had understood from an earlier teleconference and the 
deadline of 16 September that there would be some serious discussion of the 
candidates’ qualifications and that a questionnaire would be sent out if 
needed so he did not think that there would be a vote at the current 
teleconference. He suggested that the group set up a future date to vote in 
order to allow time to be able to evaluate candidates.

Azucena said she understood Martin’s point but would prefer not to have to 
postpone the election. She requested that if the PSO need to postpone the 
vote, that it take place that week and suggested that the PSO cast votes 
then and if necessary, wait for the W3C votes.  Brian noted he would not be 
available anymore that week or the next week.  He suggested that if the 
group knew the ways that the ITU-T and ETSI cast votes, a conclusion might 
be able to be made. Azucena proposed that votes be disclosed.  Brian stated 
that the ITU-T looked at the candidates and that for a number of 
reasons,  including experience and geographic situation, the ITU-T voted 
for Francisco da Silva. Azucena noted that ETSI looked at the merits of 
both candidates and due to his expertise and knowledge also cast their vote 
for Francisco da Silva.  Geoff noted that the IETF abstained from voting.

Martin stated that given the disclosed votes, it wouldn't make sense to 
take everyone's time by extending the deadline for voting.  He said he 
knows Paul Hoffman and that he’s been active in different areas but that he 
does not know Francisco da Silva.  He stated that he thought that Paul 
would have been a valuable candidate, but given the other votes, he felt 
that the PSO shouldn't spend further time on the issue and therefore, 
abstained.

The vote was carried with 4 votes for Francisco da Silva (Azucena Hernandez 
and Tapio Kaijanen of ETSI and Brian Moore and Richard Hill (in absentia) 
of ITU-T ) and three abstentions (Geoff Huston and Michael St. Johns of 
IETF and Martin Dürst of W3C).

Amy agreed to forward Francisco da Silva’s name to ICANN  as the PSO 
nomination for the Board of Trustees and to let Paul Hoffman and Francisco 
da Silva know the decision of the PSO.

4.   Azucena asked that in the event that the PSO doesn't hold another 
teleconference before the ICANN meeting in Shanghai, it be decided who 
would give the PSO report. She noted that while none of the ETSI 
representatives will go to Shanghai, they did give the report in 
Budapest.  Brian said he will not be going to Shanghai but that Richard 
hasn't said whether or not he's going.  Geoff said he did not intend to go 
to Shanghai.  Azucena proposed that if no one from the PSO goes, that the 
group should prepare a written report to be sent to ICANN.  She noted that 
her report presented in Budapest covered 1 1/2 years, so this new report 
would only have to cover the last three months but that this should be done 
as a courtesy to ICANN board. Brain said he would ask Richard his plans for 
Shanghai.

Amy agreed to go through minutes from the last three months to pick out 
issues that the PSO had discussed to prepare a draft for a report.  Brian 
suggested that Vladimir might be able to help in preparing the report. The 
deadline for this report is 28 October, 2002.

The next teleconference was scheduled for Wednesday 16 October at 12:00 UTC

Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 13:34:37 UTC