Re: DRAFT minutes for the 3 September teleconference

Dear Amy

Very precise notes just as the meeting was.
Many thanks.

Tapio

----- Original Message -----
From: "Amy van der Hiel" <amy@w3.org>
To: <pso-pc@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 8:35 PM
Subject: 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-02s
ep02.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 Monday, 9 September 2002 04:34:26 UTC