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

[Alan Greenberg]

My reaction was similar to Tim's (but with 
slightly different numbers). Whois is one of the 
few areas where people who are generally 
like-minded can have VERY different positions. 
This is certainly true within At-large regarding 
Whois and in particular regarding privacy. To ask 
one person to represent the who spectrum of beliefs is simply not possible.

We need STRONG support on the security WT, but 
diversity is not nearly as important.

Alan

At 07/06/2010 10:53 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>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
> >