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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

Comments on SSR and WHOIS below.

>  
> 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)
> 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
> 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 
While in principle we could probably do with one from each house, in practice 
there's likely to be a lot of interest so why get into the politics of trying 
to narrow the field. Ask for 4 and see. NCSG does have several qualified people 
who are likely to be interested.
> 
> At a minimum, I think we should propose at least two from the GNSO, one from 
> each house.
> In my opinion, for the SSR RT I think that security experts are as important 
> and maybe more important than SO representatives.    
> 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.
I doubt it'd be easy for us to get into evaluating people's expertise beyond a 
basic eyeball level; at some point we have to trust that people will not put in 
for something they really can't handle, and/or that the Selectors will pick 
wisely.  Per my other message on the general process, I'd suggest we add a good 
generic sentence to the standing Requirements saying specialized expertise 
relevant to the particular tasks of a given RT is highly desirable/preferred.
>  
> 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
> Do we want to propose 4 GNSO members for the Whois RT?    YES.  CG: AGREE 
> WITH 4 TIM: AGREE W/ 4
Yes
> 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
> 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?
Probably was just loose wording but yes let's clarify...
>  
> 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
>  

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************