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
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
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 ***********************************************************
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 ***********************************************************
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 ***********************************************************
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 ***********************************************************
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 ***********************************************************
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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To:"Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC:"GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Paternership
+1 ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
agreed! Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM To: krosette@cov.com; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs agreed! Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Rosette, Kristina; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM To: krosette@cov.com; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs agreed! Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
Agree w. Kristina. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Rosette, Kristina; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM To: krosette@cov.com; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs agreed! Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** <http://www.piercelaw.edu/> Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership
Mike/Kristina, Can you provide me some rationale to support 4 on the SSR RT? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:51 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Rosette, Kristina; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM To: krosette@cov.com; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs agreed! Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:51 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Rosette, Kristina; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM To: krosette@cov.com; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs agreed! Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
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@cov.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:04 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:51 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Rosette, Kristina; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM To: krosette@cov.com; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs agreed! Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
Unfortunately, I don't have time for anything more elaborate or detailed and won't until early next week. ________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:00 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@cov.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:04 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:51 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Rosette, Kristina; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM To: krosette@cov.com; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs agreed! Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
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@piercelaw.edu 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@cov.com> To:"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, <icann@rodenbaugh.com>, <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:00 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@cov.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:04 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:51 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Rosette, Kristina; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM To: krosette@cov.com; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs agreed! Regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Paternership
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Mary Wong Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Juni 2010 21:25 An: council@gnso.icann.org 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@piercelaw.edu 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@cov.com> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, <icann@rodenbaugh.com>, <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:00 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@cov.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:04 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:51 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Rosette, Kristina; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM To: krosette@cov.com; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs agreed! Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** <http://www.piercelaw.edu/> Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/> Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 4:41 PM To: MWong@piercelaw.edu; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Mary Wong Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Juni 2010 21:25 An: council@gnso.icann.org 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@piercelaw.edu 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@cov.com> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, <icann@rodenbaugh.com>, <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:00 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@cov.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:04 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:51 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Rosette, Kristina; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM To: krosette@cov.com; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs agreed! Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** 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/>
Thanks Mary for giving some rationale for your thinking. This is the first time that we have encountered a process like this except possibly for the IDN fast track group but the composition in that was predefined, although they did let us add some observers. One of the biggest issues in my opinion is this: If the GNSO gets four, why shouldn’t the ccNSO & the ASO & the GAC and the ALAC get four each also? In the case of Whois and probably New gTLDs also, it seems easier to make a case for higher GNSO participation. It is not as clear to me in the case of SSR. But I appreciate all the feedback and will communicate the Council’s response to Janis. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:25 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: 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@piercelaw.edu 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@cov.com> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, <icann@rodenbaugh.com>, <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:00 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@cov.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:04 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:51 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Rosette, Kristina; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM To: krosette@cov.com; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs agreed! Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** 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/>
Chuck I also agree with Kristina, Mike, and Mary. All three (SSR) are already huge issues and will directly affect all the rollout and use of TLD’s, IDN_TLDs, and ccTLDs and some of the issues that could be coming would include: - Punycode storage of IDN names – Neither any human nor most existing security mechanisms (anti-virus, firewalls, etc) can read it directly. It is the main reason you need “standard script” usage. - DNSSec – Can it and should it be pushed to all TLDs? (After a demo of DNS hacks a couple weeks back, I’m not sure I will ever trust a wireless hotspot fully again.) - DNSSec – Credintials – Key distribution chains and processes, rollover mechanisms, and there will likely be some of revocation process needed for bad behavior. - DNSSec – Operational issues yet to be determined too. DNSSec generates a 30x increase in response traffic for instance plus signature processing overhead. - Network management systems likewise will likely have initial issues with IDNs too. - Increased discussions of “network cyber identity requirements” and how these might work in an IDN environment. - Routing reliability as IPv6 vastly increases the route table sizes - IPv6 reachability and initial usage rollouts. (Outside of Microsoft, I could not say that anyone on the globe has a large scale IPv6 infrastructure working yet.) - New “whois” issues that could be created by fact that more, maybe most, IPv6 addresses will be indirectly assigned through an ISP to the end user or organization rather than directly assigned via IANA and the RIRs.
From an operational point of view, with implementation of TLDs, ccTLDs, IDN_TLDs, DNSSec, and IPv6 plus the issues with route stability and huge growth in cybercrime; one could reasonably expect that many unseen/unknown operational issues will affect GNSO plans and policies. (and certainly keep the SSR busy!)
As I said in my note the other week, the economies and critical infrastructure (communications, power, financial, etc) of at least 50 nations around the globe are completely tied to the security, stability, and reliability of the Internet so SSR issues are considered very carefully by most governments. Myself, I’d try to keep the 4 slots for the GNSO so we have a stronger input on how SSR issues get resolved. Take care Terry From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:25 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: 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@piercelaw.edu 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@cov.com> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, <icann@rodenbaugh.com>, <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:00 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@cov.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:04 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:51 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Rosette, Kristina; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM To: krosette@cov.com; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs agreed! Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** <http://www.piercelaw.edu/> Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/> Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership
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@cov.com> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, <icann@rodenbaugh.com>, <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:00 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@cov.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:04 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:51 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Rosette, Kristina; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM To: krosette@cov.com; MWong@piercelaw.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
agreed!
Regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 ***********************************************************
*********************************************************** 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 ***********************************************************
Thanks, Mary. I agree. Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 *********************************************************** Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
Hi, I agree with Mary and Bill. regards Olga 2010/6/7 Mary Wong <MWong@piercelaw.edu> > 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@piercelaw.edu > 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@graduateinstitute.ch> *To:* "Tim > Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> *CC:* "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> *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@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 > *********************************************************** > > > > > > [image: Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative > Partnership] <http://www.piercelaw.edu/> >
My reaction was similar to Tim's (but with slightly different numbers). Whois is one of the few areas where people who are generally like-minded can have VERY different positions. This is certainly true within At-large regarding Whois and in particular regarding privacy. To ask one person to represent the who spectrum of beliefs is simply not possible. We need STRONG support on the security WT, but diversity is not nearly as important. Alan At 07/06/2010 10:53 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
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 Selectorsâ 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
participants (11)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Gomes, Chuck -
HughesDeb＠usa.redcross.org -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Mary Wong -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Olga Cavalli -
Rosette, Kristina -
Terry L Davis, P.E. -
Tim Ruiz -
William Drake