Dear Councillors, During our call we adopted the ccNSO Guideline on selection of the CSC. The core idea is that all the Councillors who have not put their name forward as a candidate will select the top candidates as ccTLD representatives on the CSC. We also agreed to establish a Selection Committee of 6 (six) Councillors - one from each of the five regions and one NomCom appointed Councillor. We agreed that the Selection Committee will: 1) consult with the RySG on the CSC members (as described in the CWG proposal and the CSC charter) and 2) consult with the GNSO on the full slate (members + liaisons) of the CSC (as described in the CWG proposal and the CSC Charter). At this stage the additional mandate of the group is still under discussion. The issue is whether: 1) the ccNSO Council votes on the final two candidates and on the full slate (as agreed between the Selection Committee and the RySG and Selection Committee and GNSO) or 2) the ccNSO Council authorises the Selection Committee to agree on the candidates with the RySG and on the full slate with the GNSO - AND - to adopt the full slate on behalf of the ccNSO Council. If the ccNSO Council mandates the Selection Committee to finalise the selection of the two (2) ccTLD representatives on the CSC after consultation with the RySG, the Selection committee should consult by email with the other Councillors who were eligible to vote before the names of the ccTLD representatives need to be sent to ICANN (22 July 23.59 UTC). As to the selection of the ccTLD representatives, note that it was agreed that the strongest candidates should be appointed. The diversity of the CSC should be considered through the candidates to the positions of liaisons. In practical terms it means, that the top 2 candidates should be considered to be selected. As to approval of the full slate (by the GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council) note that it will not be the role of the Councils to question the validity of any recommended appointment. The only consideration is the overall composition of the CSC in terms of geographic diversity and skill set. The SO/AC, who will be appointing liaisons to the CSC, were asked to select two (2) candidates from different geographic regions. Please also note that if we decide that the full ccNSO Council votes on the full slate, we will most probably need to set up a call somewhere between 28 July and 9 August - depending on how coordination between the Selection Committee and the GNSO goes - and we will need to be quorate on that call, even if one or two (more?) Councillors put their name forward! Please do not take that lightly! Failure to be quorate on this call could seriously impact the timing of the IANA Stewardship transition. One of the concerns in the event the Selection committee would be mandated to approve the full slate is that a Councillor may know something about a candidate that could influence the approval decision. To deal with such a concern the Selection committee should consult with the other Councillors who are eligible to vote by email before the coordination conversation with the GNSO starts. Finally, a technical item we did not discuss was how to select Councillors to the Selection Committee. I see two possible options: 1) the Councillors from each region and the three NomCom appointed Councillors agree among themselves who will serve on the Selection Committee. If the region cannot decide and there is more than one volunteer within a region, we do a lottery. 2) whoever applies first from the region/NomCom gets appointed to the Selection Committee. Please note that people on the Selection Committee must be available for intense consultations (including calls) between 20 July and 8 August and further that Selection Committee members must be eligible to vote. Which of the options you think would work the best? Maybe another suggestion? Something to think about while you travel to Helsinki. Safe travels and see you all next week! Thank you! Kindest regards, ]{atrina