[council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs

[Gomes, Chuck]

If there is support from others on Tim's points, I am happy to communicate our concerns to Janis.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 10:27 AM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with
> ACSO on the next RTs
> 
> 
> I'm not too concerned about having only two seats on the Security RT,
> but strongly oppose accepting only two seats on the Whois.
> 
> 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.
> 
> I realize the ALAC and ccNSO can defend themselves, but given the
> selectors concerns over the team size I think we should respond with a
> total picture of what we think the RT should look like and why.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on
> the next RTs
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Date: Fri, June 04, 2010 1:44 pm
> To: <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> Please note what the AoC Selectors have proposed for the next two RTs.
> Please provide any comments you have on this list.  Time permitting, we
> will also briefly discuss this in meeting on 10 June.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> From: owner-soac-discussion at icann.org
> [mailto:owner-soac-discussion at icann.org] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:50 PM
> To: soac-discussion at icann.org
> Cc: 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Donna Austin'; 'Olof Nordling'
> Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
> 
> 
> 
> Dear colleagues
> 
> On behalf of Selectors I would like to propose that the size and
> composition of the two next review teams would be as follows:
> 
>                                                     Security
>   WHOIS
> GAC, including the Chair           2                              1
> GNSO                                                2
>          2
> ccNSO                                               2
>         1
> ALAC                                                 2
>           1
> SSAC                                                  1
>            1
> RSSAC                                               1
> ASO                                                    1
>              1
> Independent expert                 1-2                          2 (law
> enforcement/privacy experts)
> CEO                                                     1
>              1
>                                                           13-14
>                10
> 
> 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.
> 
> I hope that proposal will be equally unacceptable for everybody. I
> would
> appreciate your comments or expression of non-objection in coming week.
> Only after assessment of the violence of your opposition the Selectors
> will make their proposal (in present form or modified) public.
> 
> Best regards
> JK
>