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

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

Just to be clear:  I have no doubt that the RrSG and the RySG could
identify potential candidates for the SS&R RT.  I don't know their
names, whereas I do know the names of possible candidates from the CSG
and NCSG.
 
K 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
        Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 1:01 PM
        To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] GENTLE REMINDER
        
        
        
        My responses below.
        
        Tim 
         

                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] GENTLE
REMINDER
                From: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>
                Date: Wed, May 05, 2010 11:16 am
                To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, "Gomes,
Chuck"
                <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
                
                
                My comments / responses are in caps and yellow
highlight.
                
                Thanks,
                
                Caroline.
                
                From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
                Sent: 05 May 2010 16:22
                To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
                Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] GENTLE
REMINDER
                
                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.   CG: I AGREE WITH PUTTING DOWN A MARKER OF 4. TR: AGREE W/ KR and
CG 
                        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. TR: AND I AM SURE THE RySG
and RrSG COULD BOTH COME UP WITH ONE  
                        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. CG: I'D BE INCLINED TO REQUIRE / DEMONSTRATE SOME LEVEL OF
SECURITY/TECHNICAL EXPERTISE.TR: AGREE W/ CG EXCEPT THAT I WOULD SOFTEN
IT TO "EXPERIENCE OR BACKGROUND" INSTEAD OF EXPERTISE AND PREFERRED BUT
NOT REQUIRED.

                        
                        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.  CG: AGREE WITH 4 TIM: AGREE W/ 4 
                        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.  CG: AGREE TR: 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. CG: I IMAGINE IT IS SOMEONE WHO HAS A GOOD OVERVIEW
KNOWLEDGE OF DIFFERENT DATA PROTECTION REGIMES. IN  ANY CASE, SEEKING
CLARIFICATION IS A GOOD IDEA. TIM: YES CLARIFICATION, AND WHO IS
ACTUALLY PROPOSING/SELECTING THEM?

                        
                        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