<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
Agree w. Kristina.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
<http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on
the next RTs
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
***********************************************************
<http://www.piercelaw.edu/> Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An
Innovative Partnership
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|