Hi Nigel, I get your point about ICANN Board members and ccNSO councillors although I personally believe it is a different issue. I don't get your point about the gNSO. However, I do believe it is up to the ccNSO to decide what it expects from its reps on the CSC. We all worked hard to get us to a point where as customers, we have a tool to monitor performance of the essential IANA function. Remember that the CSC is the starting point of quite a few escalation mechanisms. Why would we jeopardize this big step forward by shying away from holding our reps to the highest standard? I find it slightly bizarre that this is even an issue. With reference to your point on the Bylaws: I don't know them by heart, but I can't remember reading that the Bylaws specify who the ccNSO should appoint to the CSC, let alone put in place modalities on how this should happen. I think it is entirely up to the ccNSO to ask for this commitment and I am disappointed that the call for candidates went out without a reference to this issue. I would strongly advice the Council (or the sub-committee that will decide on it) to ask shortlisted candidates to make this commitment before making the final decision. Regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 07 June 2016 11:43 To: Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community If the GNSO is doing the same, and it's in the by-laws, then obviously so. But if not, our approach should be the same as the GNSO. Or are you arguing that ccNSO representatives need to be more tied to 'customers' than gNSO representatives? Either way, it brings back to the fore the discussion than ccNSO Council Members and ccNSO Board members somehow "should" be "ccTLDs". As I've said, I can't find it in myself to get worked up about it, so I do not personally support this idea. I think the status quo (personal capacity) is entirely perfectly acceptable (if not necessarily how I'd have designed it). So you and I are in agreement here. However I know many people in the ccNSO do disagree with this, and this is a discussion we (Council and the ccNSO) need to have to avoid the kind of corridor mutterings we've had in the past (e.g. regarding Lesley's membership of Council) continuing. On 07/06/16 08:22, Mike Silber wrote:
Good to hear Nigel
However, as the CSC is outside of the ccNSO structures – I think it is entirely appropriate to deviate from the norm in the case of the CSC and require the representatives to that committee to be employees of active IANA “customers”
Regards
Mike
On 07/06/2016, 00:33, "Nigel Roberts" <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Mike
Thanks for the input. It is much appreciated.
As a representative from the ccNSO you have to be aware that there is a significant understanding from many participants that in order to be 'a member of the ccNSO' one has to be employed by a ccTLD.
Now, you and I both know that this is incorrect. A person is never a member of the ccNSO -- it is an organisation.
But nonetheless this perception persists.
It was voiced to me from several directions in respect of Lesley Cowley's continued membership of Council following her resignation from .UK. And I have heard it in other contexts. more recently, too.
I think that appointments that are governed by the by-laws have to be fulfilled in accordance with the ICANN by-laws, and not by other rules. If other rules are needed, we must discuss, and -- with the benefit of professional advice -- embed those rules in the by-laws.
What this all means is when a person is appointed in a personal capacity according to the by-laws, then they continue to serve, irrespective of by whom they are employed.
I think we agree on this vehemently.