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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mary for giving some rationale for your thinking.

This is the first time that we have encountered a process like this except 
possibly for the IDN fast track group but the composition in that was 
predefined, although they did let us add some observers.

One of the biggest issues in my opinion is this: If the GNSO gets four, why 
shouldn’t the ccNSO & the ASO & the GAC and the ALAC get four each also?  In 
the case of Whois and probably New gTLDs also, it seems easier to make a case 
for higher GNSO participation.  It is not as clear to me in the case of SSR.

But I appreciate all the feedback and will communicate the Council’s response 
to Janis.  

Chuck

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:25 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the 
next RTs

 

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.

 

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.

 

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? 

 

That said, I'd hate to not get 4 GNSO reps at all for any RT ..... :(

 

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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: 

"Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>

To:

"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:00 PM
        To: Rosette, Kristina; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        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@xxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:04 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
                Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:58 PM
                To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
                Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:51 PM
                To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
                Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM
                To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
                Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                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@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
                        Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM
                        To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Rosette, Kristina; 
MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
                        Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                        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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
                        Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM
                        To: krosette@xxxxxxx; MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
                        Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                        Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: 
Communication with ACSO on the next RTs

                         

                        agreed!

                         

                         

                        Regards 
                        Wolf-Ulrich 

                         

                                 

                                
________________________________


                                Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

                                        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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To:

"Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>

CC:

"GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, June 04, 2010 1:44 pm
> To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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
> 
> 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
***********************************************************

                                         

                                        
                                        Pierce Law | University of New 
Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/> 

 


Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership 
<http://www.piercelaw.edu/>