Dear Councillors,
DECISION IS NEEDED
As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review
team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO
members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus,
each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is -
we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due
28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time.
The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion
on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a
temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it
for future use.
I am sending you two versions - version A and version B. I will try to
briefly describe the difference between the two.
Version A.
The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates
are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO
non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds - during each round we
select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools
simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate
has not been selected yet).
Pluses:
- it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each
candidate
- it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already
been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity - except regional
diversity)
Minuses:
- the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can
think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the
requirements)
- does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a
co-chair
- short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days)
- takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends)
Version B.
The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair
and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that
match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account
Council's choices as much as possible.
Pluses:
- simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days
to hand-pick three)
- longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days)
- might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as
a co-chair (but that might not be easy).
Minuses:
- the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three
people determine the final outcome.
As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely
different mechanism. The only problem - we need to act quickly.
Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference - Version A or Version B
- to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F.), please
feel free to do it.
If we agree on the procedure, then:
- 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest
- 21 August: closure of the call for EoI
- Depending on the preferred procedure:
o Version A - 5 September: three members selected
o Version B - 30 August: three members selected
Please let us know your preference by 5 August!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
