Hi Byron, I support this way forward and would suggest that it would be better to miss the (unrealistic) deadline that have a compressed process which is open to valid criticism. BTW the date in the letter of the first meeting is next week, ie when you will send the information. so this might need explanation. Kind regards, Lesley From: byron.holland@cira.ca To: byron.holland@cira.ca; ccnso-members@icann.org; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Moving Forward on ccNSO Coordination Group Selections Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:27:34 +0000 Apologies, documents attached. From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Byron Holland Sent: June-13-14 11:22 AM To: ccnso-members@icann.org; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Moving Forward on ccNSO Coordination Group Selections Dear colleagues, The ccNSO has been asked to name the four seats on ICANN’s ‘Coordination Group’ on IANA stewardship transition, including representation from ccTLD operators from outside the ccTLD community. Here’s how I propose we proceed: · A notice be emailed out and posted to the ccNSO website calling for ccTLD operators to nominate themselves (the attached draft notice outlines the proposed overall process). · A four person ‘nomcom’ be established comprised of myself, one other ccNSO council member, an RO board representative, and one ‘independent’ individual (Bart has suggested Janis Karklins as a possible ‘independent’ member, but we have not approached him. · The NomCom would review the applications and make a recommendation to the ccNSO Council, which would approve the final selection. While soliciting nominations from amongst the ccNSO community should be relatively straightforward, reaching out to the non-ccNSO community could be more of a challenge. I propose that we ask CENTR, LACTLD, APTLD and AFNIC to reach out to the non-ccNSO community. I know that there are a number of non-ccNSO member ccTLD operators who are members in these organizations, so this should facilitate communicating with them. In addition, our need to reach out to this community will not stop with the nomination process. As the IANA stewardship transition process unfolds, I would hope that we would be able to continue to rely on the regional organizations to keep this community informed and engaged. I would much prefer that we meet F2F to review and approve this overall process and that we have a council resolution approving it. I propose that we do this at our preparatory meeting on Sunday June 22 (Bart – I know that passing a resolution at our prep meeting would be unusual, but do you see any procedural obstacle to this?) Given the role of the ROs in this, I will ask Bart to invite the RO Chairs to the Sunday meeting. You will see that the dates for applications and the final decision in the draft notice have been left blank. Timing is going to be somewhat awkward given the deadlines that ICANN has given us. Meeting ICANN’s deadline of July 2 for names would force us to pursue a very compressed process which, given the need to reach well beyond the ccNSO community, risks criticism. The other alternative is to miss the July 2 deadline. This is one of the issues we will have to discuss F2F. All this has created a bit of a vacuum in the community, which needs to be filled. I propose to send out the attached email to the whole ccTLD community to let them know where things stand. Could I get some feedback and any specific comments you have on the proposed overall process, the draft ‘call for nominations’ (we need to finalize this at the meeting on June 21) and the draft email to the community as a whole. Thanks Byron