ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FW: [council] Joint DNS security and stability analysisworking group

  • To: "'Marilyn Cade '" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Bc GNSO list '" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FW: [council] Joint DNS security and stability analysisworking group
  • From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:38:01 -0500

My vote would go to offering to drop back from 4 to 3 BC members.  We
currently have 30% of the WG. If we want to evolve WG's into true "working"
groups, a balanced combination of constituencies is the first place to
start, in my view.


Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Marilyn Cade 
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:08 AM
To: Bc GNSO list 
Subject: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FW: [council] Joint DNS security and stability
analysisworking group

Sorry to be doing this on group list: ideally we would try to solve this but
there may be implications for future Cross WGs, so probably helpful BC
members are aware. 


What we will be doing: 
Steve and I will be discussing a response. I have reached out to the
Constituency chairs on this topic, and Sarah and I will also communicate to
the CSG. 

My initial response would be to propose that the 12 remain for this WG, and
a discussion about what considerations would be reasonable for the SG to
propose on limits to membership of WGs. For future WGs.

The addition of only two additional participants over ideal of 10 seems
small enough to accept. 

However, I do support that a committment to active participation is
appropriate to require for this WG, given its nature. That could lead to a
voluntary withdrawal if someone were to find the work demands impossible. 

Feedback from members about this proposal to ask the present voluinteers to
reassess their time availability and to suggest that 12 be accepted, if all
can make that confirmation? 

I will be speaking with Steve asap on this, and w Sarah re the CSG
leadership views. 

Can the three volunteers (Adam, Mikey, and Zahid) communicate to the
excomm@xxxxxxxxxxxx that you can commit to the work demands? Scott is the
officially appointed BC rep, and has already made that commitment to the
Excomm in writing. Sorry to ask again but since we may be going to bat re
the number within the CSG and perhaps with other constituencies in NCSG. 
If anything has changed in availability re significant devotion of time,
that is important to know. 

Have the councilors heard anything else? I am here with Chris Disspain and I
will talk to him privately about his flexibility. But I suspect it is fear
of being overwhelmed by any particular SO in numbers. 

I did also get a question about availability to attend a heavy work schedule
based on historical participation in Wgs. 

We will not overwhelm list with details but will keep in close touch as
ExComm and the additional volunteers most affected by outcome. 


Marilyn Cade
BC Chair
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:01:52 
To: <bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: [council] Joint DNS security and stability analysis
 working group

 Zahid Jamil
 Jamil & Jamil
 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
 Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
 Cell: +923008238230
 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
 Fax: +92 21 35655026
  <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com
 Notice / Disclaimer
 This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
 communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
 recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
 Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
 message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
 contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged
 information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction,
 publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any
 or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic
 means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this
 communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is
 From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
 Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
 Sent: 23 February 2011 03:53
 To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Council
 Subject: [council] Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group
 We have an item on our agenda for Thursday's meeting on the DSSA WG
 I have been informed by the ccNSO that they are requesting we limit the
 number of volunteers from the GNSO to 10 for this WG.
 At the moment, we have 12 volunteers:
 Zahid Jamil (CBUC)
 Scott McCormick (CBUC)
 Mikey O'Connor (CBUC)
 George Asare-Sakyi (NCSG)
 Rafik Dammak (NCSG)
 Matt Serlin - (MarkMonitor, RrSG))
 Rick Wilhelm (Networksolutions RrSG)
 Greg Aaron (Afilias, RySG)
 Keith Drazek (Verisign, RySG)
 Don Blumenthal (PIR, RySG)
 Mike Rodenbaugh (IPC)
 Adam Palmer (CBUC)
 We will need to discuss how to limit our numbers on Thursday. In order to
 get that discussion going now, I would like to start by asking any of those
 who have volunteered if they would be willing to step aside in order to
 us get down to the 10-volunteer maximum.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy