RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] GENTLE REMINDER

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

see below in CAPS.  


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 10:45 AM
        To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] GENTLE REMINDER
        Importance: High
        
        
        Regarding the first question from Janis below, we need to
provide recommendations regarding the size and composition of the next
two review teams.  Here are the originally proposed compositions of the
two relevant RTs followed by some questions and comments from me to get
our discussion going.
         
        Security, Stability & Resiliency RT
        GAC Chair
        ICANN CEO
        1 representative each from every SO and AC 
        Independent experts (selected by the RT)

        1.      
                Do we want to propose 4 GNSO members for the SSR RT?
YES, WE MAY NOT END UP WITH 4, BUT SHOULD PUT THE MARKER DOWN.   
        2.      
                Personally, I am not sure we need that many for this RT
but I am not opposed to that.   DISAGREE B/C THINK WE SHOULD BE LOOKING
FOR SECURITY EXPERTS FROM THE SGS.  I KNOW OF AT LEAST 5 POTENTIAL
CANDIDATES IN THE CSG AND NCSG.  
        3.      
                At a minimum, I think we should propose at least two
from the GNSO, one from each house.
        4.      
                In my opinion, for the SSR RT I think that security
experts are as important and maybe more important than SO
representatives.    
        5.      
                One approach we could take is to endorse GNSO security
experts for our slots.    GOOD IDEA.  ON THE FENCE AS TO WHETHER TO
"ENCOURAGE" OR "REQUIRE" THAT SG DESIGNEE HAVE SECURITY EXPERTISE.    

         
        Whois RT
        
        GAC Chair
        ICANN CEO
        1 representative each from every SO and AC 
        Independent experts (selected by the RT)
        Representative of law enforcement
        Global policy experts

        1.      
                Do we want to propose 4 GNSO members for the Whois RT?
YES.  
        2.      
                Because of the significance of this issue in the GNSO
and the differences of views, I think we do need to propose 4 GNSO reps
for this RT.   AGREE.  
        3.      
                I am not sure what a 'global policy expert' is and
wonder how that differs from 'independent experts'.  I think we should
ask for clarification on this.   I ASSUME "GLOBAL POLICY EXPERT" IS
SOMEONE WHO SPECIALIZES IN THE COVERED SUBJECTS.   INDEPENDENT EXPERT
MAY BE A PLACEHOLDER TO GIVE THE SELECTORS FLEXIBILITY. 

         
        Note that Janis would like GNSO feedback by 16 May. I am not
sure that is possible.  I do think though that it would be helpful for
us to make some recommendations on the above in time for the 20 May
Council meeting so that the Council can consider the recommendations.
         
        Chuck
         

________________________________

        From: owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins
        Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 1:51 AM
        To: soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [soac-discussion] GENTLE REMINDER
        
        

        Dear Colleagues, 

         

        I follow up to my email dated April 22nd and to Marco's one
dated April 26th, to kindly remind you to let this list have your
comments on the following subjects by mid-May:

        *         Your respective SO/ACs expectations about size and
composition of the Review Teams 'Security Stability and Resilience of
the DNS' and 'Whois policy'

        *         Draft text of call for volunteers representing SO/ACs
for the Affirmation reviews 'Security Stability and Resilience of the
DNS' and 'Whois policy'

        Please send your comments / suggestions by Sunday the 16th of
May; 

        Thanks and best regards

        JK