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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ok, I'll draft one on short term taking into consideration all comments
received so far.
 


Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 


  _____  

Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Montag, 10. Mai 2010 13:14
An: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] GENTLE REMINDER



Are we going to have a motion for the 20 May meeting.  If so, it should
be made very soon (NLT 12 May).

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 1:59 PM
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] GENTLE REMINDER

 

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>
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>
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>
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. 
 
 [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?    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? 
 
[WUK: ] 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>
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