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

[Alan Greenberg]

That may be true from a point of view of developing the policy. The 
impact of the policy has a scope far exceeding the GNSO.

At 07/06/2010 11:09 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>Another key point we can make is that the GNSO is where almost all of
>the impact of Whois requirements is experienced.
>
>Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> > council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
> > Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 11:01 AM
> > To: Tim Ruiz
> > Cc: GNSO Council
> > Subject: Re: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with
> > ACSO on the next RTs
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > It would be interesting to hear the rationale for reverting to the
> > original proposal of tiny unrepresentative RTs.  In any event, I
> > strongly agree with Tim that 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.  Same goes for the pending RT on competition and consumer
> > issues.  As for security, I agree that two may be relatively less
> > problematic, but only relatively... it's more difficult to judge ex
> > ante what level of agreement there is or isn't here across some SGs on
> > the various issues.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > On Jun 7, 2010, at 4:26 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ***********************************************************
> > William J. Drake
> > Senior Associate
> > Centre for International Governance
> > Graduate Institute of International and
> >  Development Studies
> > Geneva, Switzerland
> > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> > www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
> > ***********************************************************
> >
> >