<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<title>Re: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Now it is up to Janis and Rod to decide and I will continue to
argue in favor of 4 GNSO reps on each RT as I have opportunity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <b>On Behalf
Of </b>Rosette, Kristina<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 11, 2010 11:34 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> council@gnso.icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO
on the next RTs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Thank you, Chuck. Well done.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 11, 2010 11:21 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> council@gnso.icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on
the next RTs</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I sent this message to Janis regarding the composition of the
AoC RTs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Gomes, Chuck <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 11, 2010 11:00 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Janis Karklins; soac-discussion@icann.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Donna Austin'; 'Olof Nordling'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next
RTs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Janis,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>After fairly
extensive discussion on the GNSO Council list and additional discussion in our
Council meeting yesterday, the GNSO feels very strongly that it is important to
have four representatives on each of the RTs. I have included a sampling
of some of the comments and rationale provided by various Councilors
below. Note that most of these comments were reinforced by multiple
Councilors and that there was overall agreement in the Council meeting for the
position.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>General
Comments</span></u><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I'm not sure that an
additional 2 GNSO reps will be detrimental to efficiency, and I should think it
would actually add to the credibility of the process - which leaves
"budgetary limitations" as the remaining (relatively unconvincing)
reason.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>It seems to me that the
ramifications of the selectors rejecting GNSO input as to participant number
are potentially significant. In particular, the irony of doing so while
the accountability and transparency review is underway is pretty amazing.
I think that would play pretty well (against ICANN, that is) in a number of
important fora.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>It'd be a lot easier if
they'd just default to four across the board in order to ensure community
representation and diverse skill sets at the table, rather than turning RT size
into a needless source of angst.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>It is perfectly
reasonable to allow one seat each to the SSAC, GAC, and ASO. But I think it's
totally implausible to assume a well represented RT with only two for the GNSO
and one each for the ccNSO and the ALAC. I believe we make a very strong
statement insisting that each of those are doubled - four for the GNSO (one for
each SG, no less), two each for the ccNSO and the ALAC due to the size of their
memberships. That would make the RT 14 members, and that is certainly workable
and more realistic.<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p><span
style='text-decoration:none'> </span></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>SSR RT</span></u><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:6.0pt;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>All three (SSR) are
already huge issues and will directly affect all the rollout and use of TLD’s,
IDN_TLDs, and ccTLDs and some of the issues that could be coming would include:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:3.0pt;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Punycode storage of IDN
names – Neither any human nor most existing security mechanisms (anti-virus,
firewalls, etc) can read it directly. It is the main reason you need
“standard script” usage.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:3.0pt;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>DNSSec – Can it and
should it be pushed to all TLDs? (After a demo of DNS hacks a couple
weeks back, I’m not sure I will ever trust a wireless hotspot fully again.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:3.0pt;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>DNSSec – Credentials –
Key distribution chains and processes, rollover mechanisms, and there
will likely be some of revocation process needed for bad behavior.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:3.0pt;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>DNSSec – Operational
issues yet to be determined too. DNSSec generates a 30x increase in
response traffic for instance plus signature processing overhead.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:3.0pt;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Network management
systems likewise will likely have initial issues with IDNs too.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:3.0pt;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Increased discussions of
“network cyber identity requirements” and how these might work in an IDN
environment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:3.0pt;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Routing reliability as
IPv6 vastly increases the route table sizes<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:3.0pt;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>IPv6 reachability and
initial usage rollouts. (Outside of Microsoft, I could not say that
anyone on the globe has a large scale IPv6 infrastructure working yet.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:3.0pt;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>New “whois” issues that
could be created by fact that more, maybe most, IPv6 addresses will be
indirectly assigned through an ISP to the end user or organization rather than
directly assigned via IANA and the RIRs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:6.0pt;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>From an operational point
of view, with implementation of TLDs, ccTLDs, IDN_TLDs, DNSSec, and IPv6
plus the issues with route stability and huge growth in cybercrime; one could
reasonably expect that many unseen/unknown operational issues will affect GNSO
plans and policies. (and certainly keep the SSR busy!) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:6.0pt;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The economies and
critical infrastructure (communications, power, financial, etc) of at least 50
nations around the globe are completely tied to the security, stability, and
reliability of the Internet so SSR issues are considered very carefully by most
governments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The Commercial SG
provides combined expertise in technical, operational and legal respect of
security aspects of the DNS system.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Whois RT<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Whereas Internet users
across the whole ICANN community are impacted by Whois policy, I don’t think
there is any doubt that GNSO constituents are impacted the most. It is
gTLD registrants whose data is displayed and used. It is gTLD contracted
parties who are required to implement Whois and who best understand the
customer service and operational issues related to Whois offerings. It is
commercial gTLD registrants whose businesses are affected when IP rights are
violated. It is noncommercial users who have most often pointed out the
need for privacy of Whois information and noncommercial organizations that are
impacted in similar ways as commercial businesses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>In addition, because of
the GNSO’s long and belabored Whois policy development history and varied Whois
operational offerings, the GNSO has the best source of Whois experts from
various points of view. There is also good evidence that each SG provides
a unique area of expertise and represents different points of view with regard
to Whois policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Whois is one of the few
areas where people who are generally like-minded can have VERY different
positions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>There really has to be
four for WHOIS, the perspectives of the SGs are just too variable for any two
to represent the others, and the whole process could become a focal point of
controversy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I strongly oppose
accepting only two seats on the Whois.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>New gTLDs
RT<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Similar arguments could
be made for this future RT.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
owner-soac-discussion@icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Janis Karklins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 04, 2010 1:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> soac-discussion@icann.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Donna Austin'; 'Olof Nordling'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black'>Dear colleagues<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black'>On behalf of Selectors I would like to propose that the size and
composition of the two next review teams would be as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black'> Security
WHOIS<br>
GAC, including the Chair
2
1<br>
GNSO
2
2<br>
ccNSO
2
1<br>
ALAC
2
1<br>
SSAC
1
1<br>
RSSAC
1<br>
ASO
1 1<br>
Independent expert
1-2
2
(law enforcement/privacy experts)<br>
CEO
1
1<br>
13-14
10<br>
<br>
I understand that your initial suggestions/requests were not fully
accommodated, but for the sake of efficiency, credibility of the process,
budgetary limitations Selectors have developed this proposal. If we would take
into account all wishes, the RT size would be over 20 which in Selectors’ view
is not credible option.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black'>I hope that proposal will be <b>equally unacceptable</b> for
everybody. I would appreciate your <b>comments or expression of non-objection </b>in
coming week. Only after assessment of the violence of your opposition the
Selectors will make their proposal (<b>in present form or modified</b>) public.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black'>Best regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black'>JK <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>