[gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here’s some input from Chris Disspain about the size and composition of the 
next RTs that I think might be useful to this DT.

 

Chuck

 

From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 11:50 PM
To: 'Janis Karklins'; 'Ray Plzak'; Gomes, Chuck; 'Louis Lee'
Cc: soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx; 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Marco Lorenzoni'; 'Donna 
Austin'; 'Alice Jansen'
Subject: RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection

 

Hi Janis, All,

 

Size: Given that we appear to have a workable sized team for the A&T review, 
perhaps that should be our default.

 

Composition: I think this will need to vary. The ccTLD community will feel that 
it should have a larger number of members on the security review than on the 
whois review principally because the latter is very much a gTLD theme. I would 
certainly expect that on the security review team the cc community would have 
equal representation with the g community.

 

Timing: Happy to proceed on the basis you suggest. 

 

Logistics: It is much easier to get useful, knowledgeable and willing 
volunteers if we know up front how many positions we are filling. We are 
perfectly happy to put forward a slate and let the selectors choose BUT some 
guidance on numbers would be appreciated.

 

Cheers,

 

Chris Disspain

CEO - auDA 

au Domain Administration Ltd

ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> 

 

Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential 
and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named 
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, 
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by 
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please 
consider the environment before printing this email.

 

From: owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Janis Karklins
Sent: Saturday, 15 May 2010 18:57
To: 'Ray Plzak'; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Louis Lee'
Cc: soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx; 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Marco Lorenzoni'; 'Donna 
Austin'; 'Alice Jansen'
Subject: RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection

 

Thanks for your input, colleagues. 

I understand that GNSO is developing internal procedure and it may be adopted 
in June. 

In that case we should opt to launch recruitment by end of July which would 
include endorsement of the volunteers by the respective AC/SO. Selectors would 
do their job 

during the months of August and the Teams would start preparations for their 
activities in September.

The experience of A&T RT shows that the lead time to the first f2f meeting  is 
about 45 days.

 

I would  like to indicate that during the last GAC conference call the view was 
expressed that the straw poll suggestions on the size of the teams would be too 
low. The experience of the A&T RT shows that the team of the size of dozen is 
functional. Budget concerns are not relevant because majority of the team 
members are covering their participation by themselves.

 

Would be interested in your feedback on the size and composition of the RTs.

 

Best regards

JK

 

 

 

 

From: owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Ray Plzak
Sent: ceturtdiena, 2010. gada 13. maijā 20:23
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Louis Lee'; 'Janis Karklins'
Cc: soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx; 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Marco Lorenzoni'; 'Donna 
Austin'; 'Alice Jansen'
Subject: RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection

 

Janis,

 

>From the SSAC perspective, I concur with Chuck’s recommendation.

 

Ray

 

From: owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:57
To: Louis Lee; Janis Karklins
Cc: soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx; Rod Beckstrom; Marco Lorenzoni; Donna Austin; 
Alice Jansen
Subject: RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection

 

Janis,

 

I would like to strongly endorse Louie's recommendation and also suggest the 
following: The request for applicants should refer applicants seeking 
endorsement from an SO or AC to the applicable SO or AC.  The GNSO is currently 
developing a long term process for endorsing candidates for AoC RTs and plans 
to finish that not later than June 2010.  That means that it may not be 
possible to endorse candidates by June.  I think it would be preferrable if the 
GNSO process was finalized before applicants seeking GNSO endorsement applied 
for such endorsement.

 

So the time line below does not work well for the GNSO and we really would like 
to handle the next two RT endorsement much better than the first.

 

Chuck

         

________________________________

        From: owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Louis Lee
        Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:35 AM
        To: Janis Karklins
        Cc: soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx; Rod Beckstrom; Marco Lorenzoni; Donna 
Austin; Alice Jansen
        Subject: Re: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection

        Thanks, Janis. I will forward the message on.

         

        One recommendation is that you open the application window again to 
allow more applicants from the ASO side only.  The AoC recommends that a review 
team member serves on no more than one team. While I was the only one to have 
applied, I have a couple colleagues interested in serving on the other team 
that calls for an ASO-endorsed member. (I would not feel disadvantaged in any 
way if this happened.) 
        
        Louie 

        --  

         

        Please forgive the brevity of this message as it was sent from my 
mobile device.

        
        On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:19 PM, "Janis Karklins" 
<janis.karklins@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

                Dear colleagues

                Two Affirmation-mandated reviews are to start on October 1st, 
namely the ‘Whois policy’; and ‘Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS’.
                The lesson we learned from the ‘Accountability and 
Transparency’ experience is that the process leading to the establishment of a 
Review Team can be quite time-consuming. Hence my suggestion would be to start 
the preliminary activities for these upcoming reviews quite soon. 

                Based on our experience I would like to suggest the following 
sequence:

                ·         Chairs consult their respective AC/SO on the size and 
composition of the both RTs – next 3 weeks.

                ·         After agreement among Chairs on the issue above, the 
call for nominations is renewed and each AC/SO would endorse 2-3 time more 
candidates that agreed above – mid May – 20 June.

                ·         Selectors make selection and announce composition of 
the both RTs at the end of the Brussels meeting.

                Would this sequence be acceptable? Pls provide your comments at 
your earliest convenience.

                Best regards

                JK

                PS. The proposal has not been agreed yet by both Selectors. 
These are just my personal ideas. JK

                 

                Click here 
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/liM09!KwlirTndxI!oX7Ujam5VJmC8gUNMjh1yhDCHk2YeXT4eNg6ffnrh97zEADlJAxlYjbj3RTEf5tQBqpNg==>
  to report this email as spam.



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5053 (20100423) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5113 (20100513) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature 
database 5117 (20100515) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature 
database 5119 (20100516) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature 
database 5119 (20100516) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com