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

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

Another key point we can make is that the GNSO is where almost all of
the impact of Whois requirements is experienced.  

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 11:01 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: GNSO Council
> 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
> ***********************************************************
> 
>