If there is support from others on Tim's points, I am happy to communicate our concerns to Janis. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 10:27 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
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@verisign.com> Date: Fri, June 04, 2010 1:44 pm To: <council@gnso.icann.org>
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@icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:50 PM To: soac-discussion@icann.org 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