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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

See my comments below
 


Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 


________________________________

        Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
        Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Mai 2010 16:45
        An: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] GENTLE REMINDER
        Wichtigkeit: Hoch
        
        
        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?
        2.      
                Personally, I am not sure we need that many for this RT
but I am not opposed to that.  
        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.

        
        
         [WUK: ] SSR seems to get into focus of the ICANN CEO. We should
address this requirement mainly providing the GNSO expertise in this
area.
                                Personal suggestion: 1 rep. the DN
management process, 1 rep. the network infrastructure, 1 rep. the DN
"user"
         
        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? 
        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.
        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.

         
         [WUK: ] Fully agreed! 
         
        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