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

["Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 Paternership