Re: ITU Statement on TAC

Amy,
I suggest that each organisation sends their comment direct to ICANN and
copies it to the PSO-PC list. If later in addition we find a common text
then you can send this to them.
Brian.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Amy van der Hiel" <amy@w3.org>
To: "Hill, Richard" <richard.hill@itu.int>; <pso-pc@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 6:17 PM
Subject: 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-02
s
> >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 Tuesday, 10 September 2002 03:58:48 UTC