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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

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/>