<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
Wolf,
Please note that delaying action on the AoC RT endorsement process would
mean that applicants requesting GNSO endorsement would not be assured of
the GNSO process until after our meeting on 23 June. Also note that the
Call for Applicants went out on June 1st and the deadline is July 15th.
I know you are aware of this and that this may be out of your control,
but one of the reasons we tried to have someone from every SG on the DT
was to facilitate communication of SGs throughout the development of the
process with the hope that there would be good buy-in along the way.
Chuck
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 4:41 PM
To: MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO
on the next RTs
I fully support this approach.
I'd also like to remind you of the council motion unanimously passed on
May 20 regarding the RT slots requested for the GNSO. I don't see budget
limitations as a convincing instrument used at this high level.
Needless to say that the CSG provides combined expertise in technical,
operational and legal respect of security aspects of the DNS system
forcing to be represented.
In addition I'd like to give you notice that ongoing CSG internal
discussion on the GNSO endorsement process for AOC RTs may request some
more time before being able to support the related motion.
Regards
Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Mary Wong
Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Juni 2010 21:25
An: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication
with ACSO on the next RTs
I agree with Kristina that it's an important issue on which
there is a good deal of experience within the GNSO.
I note that Janis' email on this issue mentioned "efficiency,
credibility of the process, [and] budgetary limitations" as reasons for
the numbers given for each upcoming RT. I'm not sure that an additional
2 GNSO reps will be detrimental to efficiency, and I should think it
would actually add to the credibility of the process - which leaves
"budgetary limitations" as the remaining (relatively unconvincing)
reason.
In addition, and although it's true that it's suggested they
each get only 1 rep on the WHOIS RT, ccNSO and ALAC each get 2 on the SS
RT. I am highly reluctant to get into a "us vs. them" or "who 'deserves'
more slots" pre-selection contest amongst the ACSOs, but it seems to me
as though this type of artificial limitation of GNSO slots - as opposed
to the suggested default of 4 per RT - will inevitably lead us there.
Chuck and others more experienced at this type of thing, will it
be such a bad strategy to ask for 4 GNSO slots (1 per SG) for each RT,
but if the Selectors feel (strongly) differently, they should give us
better reasons for, say, limiting the SS RT besides the general ones
quoted by Janis?
That said, I'd hate to not get 4 GNSO reps at all for any RT
..... :(
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:
"Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
To:
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
6/8/2010 3:07 PM
Subject:
RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the
next RTs
Unfortunately, I don't have time for anything more elaborate or detailed
and won't until early next week.
________________________________
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:00 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication
with ACSO on the next RTs
I was hoping for something a little more convincing to increase
the chances of convincing Janis. I think we have a pretty good argument
for Whois.
Chuck
From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:04 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication
with ACSO on the next RTs
Important issue, extensive expertise within SGs, not as
convinced as you are that there aren't philosophical variances among the
SGs. On a more practical note, we've all already got too much going on
without having to spend extra time determining which SG person goes
forward.
________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:58 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW:
Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
Mike/Kristina,
Can you provide me some rationale to support 4 on the
SSR RT?
Chuck
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:51 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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
***********************************************************
Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire
- An Innovative Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative
Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|