RE: DRAFT minutes for the 3 September teleconference

Thanks for the excellent minutes.

I will be attending the ICANN meeting in Shanghai, and so could give a
report on PSO activities.

But I'm not sure if we have enough material to justify a "slot" in the
formal Board meeting.  Perhaps a written report would be more appropriate?

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: Amy van der Hiel [mailto:amy@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, 06 September 2002 19:35
> To: pso-pc@w3.org
> 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-implementat
> ion-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 Monday, 9 September 2002 08:30:08 UTC