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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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