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

[Olga Cavalli]

Hi,
I agree with Mary and Bill.
regards
Olga

2010/6/7 Mary Wong <MWong at piercelaw.edu>

>  I agree with Tim's arguments and suggestion for a response, and in
> addition support Bill's suggestion that all RTs start with a default
> distribution of 1 rep per SG from the GNSO (with deviations being explained
> and justified according to each RT scope/topic).
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
>  *Mary W S Wong*
> Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Franklin Pierce Law Center
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
> at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>
>
> >>>
>     *From: * William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> *To:* "Tim
> Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com> *CC:* "GNSO Council " <council at gnso.icann.org> *Date:
> * 6/7/2010 11:05 AM *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
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative
> Partnership] <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100607/6698f1ca/attachment.html>