I guess it depends a bit on interpretation. I would say that the community of all gTLD registrants and all of those users and law enforcement who may be impacted by the lack of accurate WHOIS data exceed just the GNSO. Presumably that is why the issue made it into the AoC and is an ICANN-wide review team. Alan At 07/06/2010 11:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Alan,
Only gTLD registries and registrars will be required to implement any Whois policies and only gTLD registrants will have to live with them. For what scope far exceeds the GNSO?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 11:31 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; Tim Ruiz Cc: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
That may be true from a point of view of developing the policy. The impact of the policy has a scope far exceeding the GNSO.
At 07/06/2010 11:09 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Another key point we can make is that the GNSO is where almost all of the impact of Whois requirements is experienced.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 11:01 AM To: Tim Ruiz Cc: GNSO Council 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@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
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake ***********************************************************