Yes that looks spot on.
N
From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>
On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 7:37 PM
To: ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] FW: FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: Draft Terms of Reference for Community Representatives Group regarding IRP Standing Panel Selection
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you very much for all your comments.
As to Alejandra’s question:
>Maybe it is an issue of format incompatibility, but the numbering is odd. Going from I. to (ii) to (B) 😅
No, it’s not a formatisation issue. It is a quote from the Bylaws, hence, the strange numbering
☺
I did not find any reference to the expected time commitment, did you? I added that as additional question.
I tried to summarise and formalize the feedback. Please see if that reflects all your points:
---
The ccNSO Council supports the draft ToR; however, the timelines seem overly optimistic and ambitious. Please note, that the ccNSO would need at least 3 weeks
to issue a call for volunteers and select members to the group.
On specific points raised in the documents, the ccNSO Council would like to propose:
In addition, the ccNSO Council would like to understand the estimated time commitment expected from group members.
---
Let me know if something is missing or misinterpreted!
Kind regards,
]{atrina