Hi Katrina,
Thanks for the prompt feedback.
I believe the all document should be reviewed by a UK mother tongue for a language and jargon consistency (either “procedure” or “guideline”). The same UK mother tongue should draft a paragraph about the possible
decision of non-appointing anyone.
Regarding the use of future tense, the European Commission guidelines for documents and procedures in English suggest what I corrected.
As for the final Chair and vice-chairs decision, the text should be refined. As it reads now, it does not support a bottom-up and transparent approach.
Regarding the example in article 6.1, the language should be improved. Eventually, it would be recommendable to have the example in a footnote.
Best,
Giovanni
Giovanni
Seppia
/ External Relations Manager
Phone:
+32 (0)2 401 27 50
Mobile: +39 335 8141733
Website:
www.eurid.eu
Address:
Woluwelaan 150 - 1831 Diegem - Belgium
From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>
Sent: 01 April 2019 17:52
To: Giovanni Seppia <Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu>; ccnso-council@icann.org
Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] General selection procedure
Hi Giovanni,
Thank you for your suggestions and comments.
I’ll try to address your questions:
1.
Who receives requests: unfortunately, at the moment, there is no clear channel via which requests can be received. Sometimes they are sent to the Secretariat, sometimes directly to the chair,
sometimes we find them in Board’s resolutions, etc. Therefore, until one channel is established, it is indeed the ccNSO in its broader sense that receives those requests.
2.
Article 5: the general timeline is defined in the guideline. If it does not allow to meet the deadline in the original request, then the Council needs to decide on a different timeline.
3.
Article 5.1. – no, any next working day.
4.
Article 6.1. – if not specified, then calendar days. What’s so convulted about the example? We’ve used it many times before
J
5.
Article 6.2. – if a candidate with almost full support of the Council has not been accepted, then how can you describe it as “taking into account the outcome of the Council vote as much as
possible”? However, the second most preferred candidate may not be accepted. Please note that this clause (first introduced in the IFRT appointment guideline that the Council agreed to follow last August) is meant ONLY for those cases when there are additional
requirements for members. For example, as it was for the IFRT - EACH of the appointed members had to be from a different region. In that case, if the second candidate is from the same region as the first one, the chair and vice-chairs will have to overturn
Council vote. Same is true if the third one is also from the same region. If there are additional requirements on top of the regional diversity, e.g. requirements for gender balance, it adds additional complexity and maybe even third or fourth candidates cannot
be accepted. However, at some point the chair and vice-chairs need to start thinking about the skill set... such weighting cannot be efficiently done by a group of 18 people. Therefore, at some point, we just have to trust those three. If you don’t, then,
perhaps, such people should not be entrusted with the respective roles of chair and vice-chairs.
6.
About the use of future tense in guidelines – I asked about that when the GRC first started reviewing the guidelines and was told by Lesley that this is a normal thing to say “will appoint”,
“will report”, etc. in legal(ish) documents in English. Other native speakers on the GRC also have never objected to this.
7.
According to the Bylaws, the ccNSO develops its own internal procedures. We call them guidelines (in terms of the Pirates of the Carribean) but when we refer to them in terms of the Bylaws,
I think it is correct to call them Procedures.
Please suggest the wording and the place for the paragraph about the decision not to appoint anyone. I still believe it is covered by other procedures (all requests are first reviewed by the Triage
Committee, then discussed by the Council...) but it is not a problem to add something in this guideline as well.
Kind regards,
]{atrina
From: Giovanni Seppia [mailto:Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 6:10 PM
To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>;
ccnso-council@icann.org
Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] General selection procedure
Hi Katrina,
Thanks for sharing it.
I made several edits to improve the document flow.
I fully agree with Nick to include a paragraph about a possible decision of the Council not to appoint anyone for a specific group.
Best,
Giovanni
Giovanni
Seppia
/ External Relations Manager
Phone:
+32 (0)2 401 27 50
Mobile: +39 335 8141733
Website:
www.eurid.eu
Address:
Woluwelaan 150 - 1831 Diegem - Belgium
From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>
On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki
Sent: 01 April 2019 10:22
To: ccnso-council@icann.org
Subject: [ccnso-council] General selection procedure
Dear Colleagues,
Here is another guideline for you to review before we send it to the community for their feedback.
In many cases we have specific guidelines that describe procedure of how we select members to certain groups, e.g. to CSC, IFRT, review teams. But sometimes we do not have a specific guideline for the process, e.g. when
we are asked to appoint somebody to a CCWG. For those cases, the Guidelines Review Committee developed a general guideline.
Please have a look and let me know if there are any suggestions/ideas/corrections by the end of the week.
Kind regards,
]{atrina
Disclaimer:
This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose
its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email
is done in accordance with our
Privacy Policy. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses.
Other languages: