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

[KnobenW at telekom.de]

All,
 
see attached the "selectors'" proposal on the next AoC RT size. My
opinion is that we should oppose and keep the present GNSO position (4
seats). Budget limitation is really not an argument on such high level.
 
On the other hand I would appreciate Olivier commenting on his
experience regarding the size of the Accountability RT and its managing.
Does this look inefficient?
 
Tony Holmes, do you have a chance to share views with the ExComm?
 
In addition I would welcome any comment on the RT evaluation process
I've provided to you last week in order to brief Jaime and myself for
the coming council meeting June 10.
 
 


Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 


________________________________

	Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
	Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Juni 2010 20:45
	An: council at gnso.icann.org
	Betreff: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with
ACSO on the next RTs
	
	

	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 

	 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20100605/57320251/attachment.html>