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

Wed Jun 9 08:58:32 UTC 2010

Hi

On Jun 8, 2010, at 9:25 PM, Mary Wong wrote:

> I agree with Kristina that it's an important issue on which there is a good deal of experience within the GNSO.
>  
> I note that Janis' email on this issue mentioned "efficiency, credibility of the process, [and] budgetary limitations" as reasons for the numbers given for each upcoming RT. I'm not sure that an additional 2 GNSO reps will be detrimental to efficiency, and I should think it would actually add to the credibility of the process - which leaves "budgetary limitations" as the remaining (relatively unconvincing) reason.

It would be interesting to know if they're implying that group size generally and having 4 GNSOers in particular has negatively impacted the efficiency and credibility of the ATRT.  That doesn't fit with my understanding of the process.
>  
> In addition, and although it's true that it's suggested they each get only 1 rep on the WHOIS RT, ccNSO and ALAC each get 2 on the SS RT. I am highly reluctant to get into a "us vs. them" or "who 'deserves' more slots" pre-selection contest amongst the ACSOs, but it seems to me as though this type of artificial limitation of GNSO slots - as opposed to the suggested default of 4 per RT - will inevitably lead us there.

Artificially creating scarce positional goods for people to fight over is certainly an interesting approach to institutional design in a "nimble" organization...
>  
> Chuck and others more experienced at this type of thing, will it be such a bad strategy to ask for 4 GNSO slots (1 per SG) for each RT, but if the Selectors feel (strongly) differently, they should give us better reasons for, say, limiting the SS RT besides the general ones quoted by Janis?

I take Chuck's points on SSR that there's comparatively less variation in perspective, that more slots for independent experts might be sensible, and that if we end up at 2 we can probably make it work.  Nevertheless, I agree with Kristina and others that we shouldn't start by accepting 2.  Unless in exchange we can lock in 4 on each of the others as the model.

Cheers,

Bill
> 
> 
> >>>
> From:	"Rosette, Kristina" <krosette at cov.com>
> To:	"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>, <icann at rodenbaugh.com>, <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Date:	6/8/2010 3:07 PM
> Subject:	RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
> Unfortunately, I don't have time for anything more elaborate or detailed and won't until early next week. 
> 
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:00 PM
> To: Rosette, Kristina; icann at rodenbaugh.com; council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
> 
> 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
>  
> 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
> ***********************************************************
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100609/9e8dd3a0/attachment.html>