<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
Alan,
Only gTLD registries and registrars will be required to implement any
Whois policies and only gTLD registrants will have to live with them.
For what scope far exceeds the GNSO?
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 11:31 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; Tim Ruiz
> Cc: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with
> ACSO on the next RTs
>
> That may be true from a point of view of developing the policy. The
> impact of the policy has a scope far exceeding the GNSO.
>
> At 07/06/2010 11:09 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> >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
> > > ***********************************************************
> > >
> > >
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|