ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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


Hi

On Jun 8, 2010, at 9:25 PM, Mary Wong wrote:

> 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.

It would be interesting to know if they're implying that group size generally 
and having 4 GNSOers in particular has negatively impacted the efficiency and 
credibility of the ATRT.  That doesn't fit with my understanding of the process.
>  
> 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.

Artificially creating scarce positional goods for people to fight over is 
certainly an interesting approach to institutional design in a "nimble" 
organization...
>  
> 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?

I take Chuck's points on SSR that there's comparatively less variation in 
perspective, that more slots for independent experts might be sensible, and 
that if we end up at 2 we can probably make it work.  Nevertheless, I agree 
with Kristina and others that we shouldn't start by accepting 2.  Unless in 
exchange we can lock in 4 on each of the others as the model.

Cheers,

Bill
> 
> 
> >>>
> 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
>  
> 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
> ***********************************************************
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

***********************************************************
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 >>>