Re: ITU Statement on TAC

Hi Richard and all --

I may have misunderstood the implications of Geoff and Azucena's 
messages,  so would appreciate your suggestions on how to go forward.

According to Geoff's message [1], the IAB  would prefer each organization 
"conveys its own response to the ICANN E &R Committee on this 
topic".  According to Azucena's reply [2], ETSI has already sent 
submissions to the E&R Committee and it would be "no problem to send 
another one".

I would be happy to gather opinions and send them to ICANN if that is the 
correct protocol.

Also, can someone please let me know the contacts at ICANN to whom I should 
send the official notification of the nomination of Mr. da Silva?  I send a 
message to Vladimir, but have not yet had a response.

Please advise.

Thanks very much!
Amy

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/pso-pc/2002Sep/0015.html
2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/pso-pc/2002Sep/0016.html

At 17:23 9/9/2002 +0200, Hill, Richard wrote:
>Please find below the ITU statement on TAC.
>
>It's not clear to me what the next step should be.  Should ITU submit this
>comment directly to ICANN, or will the PSO Secretariat submit all the
>individual comments in one block, as has been done in the past?
>
>Thanks and 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
>
>****************
>The ITU-T representatives to the PSO have 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 ITU-T 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.
>
>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.
>
>It is not clear why the ERC is proposing to include members from both the
>IETF and the IAB as members of TAC, given the nature of those organizations.
>If a parallel were to be drawn with the ITU, then TAC should include members
>of both ITU-T and TSAG.
>
>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.  Thus it is not clear why
>more than two representatives would be required from each member of TAC.
>
>Also 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 ITU-T proposes that the membership of TAC consist of
>two representatives from each of the PSO member organizations, which at this
>time are ETSI, IETF, ITU, and W3C.
>
>****************************

-- 
Amy van der Hiel
amy@w3.org
W3C/MIT 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
telephone: +1.617.253.5628  fax: +1.617.258.5999

Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 13:15:15 UTC