RE: ITU Statement on TAC

Having seen no objection, I will proceed as suggested by Brian.

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: Brian Moore [mailto:brian@bwmc.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 September 2002 9:54
> To: Hill, Richard; pso-pc@w3.org; Amy van der Hiel
> Subject: 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-implementa
> tion-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 Friday, 13 September 2002 10:47:02 UTC