A good point Demi. I agree with you. 2 members statement irrespective of originality (member or non member) is okay. Let the categorization be within an internal process of appointment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eng. Abibu R. Ntahigiye; Manager, tzNIC; +255 784 279 511 On Jun 18, 2015, at 11:25 PM, Demi Getschko wrote:
Dear fellow council members, just a simple (and may be naive) observation: If I remember correctly, the 2nd draft version states that at the PTI board there would be 1 representative from ccNSO members and 1 from the cc's that are not in ccNSO... I find a little bit troubling this kind of separation, giving that we are striving to have more and more members engaged in our community. It seems to me unstimulating for many cc's to join ccNSO since may be easier to be selected if they remain outside.
May be it would be better if: a) we have 1 member that has to be from ccNSO a 1 that come from the whole cc community, or b) two members from the whole cc community, disregarding if they are members of ccNSO or not... ?? best demi
If I remember correctly, the 2nd draft version states that, at the PTI board there would be 1 representative from ccNSO members and 1 from the cc's not in CCNSO... I find a little bit strange this kind of separation, giving that we are hoping to have more and more members in our community. It seems to be
On 6/1/15 9:24 AM, Kristina Nordstrom wrote:
Dear all,
Please find below the recording of the informal Council call on 28 May. Please note that this recording has not been publicly posted.
https://icann.box.com/shared/static/ejpfu56t0blnndaoggpboukyu8309jp0.mp3 <http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=zZ8xDDIU4PY795Cika7Nmy-2FNugFnAwo9az...>
Kind regards, Kristina