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

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

Agreed.


________________________________

        From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 1:49 PM
        To: Rosette, Kristina
        Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] GENTLE REMINDER
        
        
        
        Right, so ideally, we want four spots on that RT to accomodate
all SGs.
        

        Tim 
         
         

                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] GENTLE
REMINDER
                From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
                Date: Wed, May 05, 2010 12:40 pm
                To: <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
                
                
                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