ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:44:32 -0400
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acr/uxvCsUmdFi+QT1eMqVxQpN58mgC8mrLpAESWi4AAFXU+cA==
  • Thread-topic: [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@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:50 PM
To: soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx
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 

 



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>