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

Tue Jun 8 19:00:27 UTC 2010

I was hoping for something a little more convincing to increase the
chances of convincing Janis.  I think we have a pretty good argument for
Whois.

Chuck

From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette at cov.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:04 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; icann at rodenbaugh.com; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO
on the next RTs

Important issue, extensive expertise within SGs, not as convinced as you
are that there aren't philosophical variances among the SGs.  On a more
practical note, we've all already got too much going on without having
to spend extra time determining which SG person goes forward.  

________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
	Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:58 PM
	To: icann at rodenbaugh.com; council at gnso.icann.org
	Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication
with ACSO on the next RTs

	Mike/Kristina,

	Can you provide me some rationale to support 4 on the SSR RT?

	Chuck

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
	Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:51 PM
	To: council at gnso.icann.org
	Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication
with ACSO on the next RTs

	Agree w. Kristina.

	Mike Rodenbaugh

	RODENBAUGH LAW

	tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

	http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
	Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM
	To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW at telekom.de; MWong at piercelaw.edu
	Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
	Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication
with ACSO on the next RTs

	Agree w/r/t/ Whois and disagree w/r/t SSR.

	Don't believe we should be negotiating against ourselves by
agreeing to two. Also, 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.

________________________________

		From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
		Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM
		To: KnobenW at telekom.de; Rosette, Kristina;
MWong at piercelaw.edu
		Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
		Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW:
Communication with ACSO on the next RTs

		So far, I think everyone who has commented supports
Tim's suggestion that there should be four GNSO members on the Whois RT
and most seem to support a default of one rep per SG for all RTs.  I
personally think that we might maximize our chances of getting four on
the Whois RT if we concede to having two on the SSR RT and also think
that it is fairly easy to make a strong case for that.  

		The Case for Four on the Whois RT

		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.

		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.

		The Case for Two on the SSR RT

		I believe that the SSR RT requires a higher degree of
technical expertise than policy expertise and is less dependent on SG
areas of focus.  I also believe that the GNSO community as well as the
ICANN community is much more united in terms of SSR issues and hence
representation from different sectors may not necessarily produce
significantly different contributions, especially when compared to a
topic like Whois.  Particularly with regard to the GNSO, if each SG
endorses one candidate for the SSR team as proposed, I suspect that the
SSR RT would not be negatively impacted if the Selectors choose a RrSG
candidate over a RySG candidate or a NCSG candidate over a CSG candidate
or any other comparison because all of us will likely be putting forth
strong security experts.

		The SSR RT may be an area where external experts may be
especially helpful.  By having fewer reps from SOs and ACs, space may be
available for a few more experts.

		My Conclusion

		I suggest that I make the case for four GNSO reps on the
Whois RT and agree to two on the SSR team.  This might set a good
precedent  for asking for four on the New gTLD RT because that, like
Whois, is a big GNSO issue and one that there are clear variances in
points of view from each SG.

		Chuck

		From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de
		Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM
		To: krosette at cov.com; MWong at piercelaw.edu
		Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
		Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW:
Communication with ACSO on the next RTs

		agreed!

		Regards 
		Wolf-Ulrich 

________________________________

			Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina
			Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juni 2010 19:46
			An: Mary Wong
			Cc: GNSO Council
			Betreff: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW:
Communication with ACSO on the next RTs

			+1

________________________________

				From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
				Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 1:43 PM
				Cc: GNSO Council
				Subject: Re: [council] FW:
[soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs

				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
***********************************************************

				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/20100608/ab4bcf84/attachment.html>