Dear Colleagues, There has been some back and forth on this issue of non-ccNSO participation in the Coordinating Group. I received an email from one of the applicants, Dr. Govind from India, on behalf of .in, who are not a ccNSO member. I have pasted my reply to him below for your information. As I’m sure all of you can understand, the selection process to choose the nominees for the Coordinating Group was not an easy one, nor was it a task taken lightly by the Selection Committee members. Best efforts were made to be inclusive of non-ccNSO members and of the geographic diversity that makes up the ccTLD community, as well as ensuring the final selectees were able to effectively represent all ccTLDs. I reiterate the statement from the Selection Committee in its report: “The Committee members agreed that coordination group membership is open to members and non-‐members of the ccNSO. The Committee members further considered that membership and non-‐membership of the ccNSO should not be treated as a selection requirement as such, but should be considered a process requirement: all ccTLDs (independent of membership of the ccNSO) should have had a fair and equal opportunity to be selected for the Coordination Group. The Selection Committee agreed that the call for nomination, composition of the Selection Committee and selection criteria and process ensure that selection is independent of membership of the ccNSO.” In its direction to the Selection Committees, ICANN had stated that it ‘strongly urges communities to adhere to diversity standards as they carry out their respective selection processes’. After careful deliberation, the final four nominees that were selected met the selection criteria and had the high level skills and expertise to effectively represent the ccTLD community on this important group. It is important to note that the choice of the final four names was reached by consensus, but not unanimity. As the Coordinating Group is an ICANN-coordinated group that reflects the diversity of IANA’s stakeholders, balance will be key to its success. Nigel has suggested adding a fifth person as a possible solution. This is not an option I favour as it is complex (ICANN would have to agree), time consuming (the Selection Committee would need to reconvene to discuss the ranking of all of the applicants again) and possibly not a ‘solution’, as there is no guarantee that the objective of non-ccNSO participation would necessarily prevail over that of geographic diversity. The two non-ccNSO applicants are from regions already represented in the four individuals selected, whereas neither North America nor Latin America/Caribbean are currently represented. Regards Byron Dear Dr Govind, The candidates were selected by the Selection Committee which was established and approved by the ccNSO after extensive consultation of the Regional ccTLD organisations and the ccTLD managers present at the London meeting. The Selection Committee included members from the ccTLD community as a whole, more specifically: • Two members from the ccNSO Council, • One member appointed by the Boards of the Regional Organizations, • One non-ccNSO member and one ccNSO member, and one ccTLD, who was also member from the ccNSO The Selection Committee was tasked to select the 4 candidates for the Coordination Group based on the criteria listed in the call for nominations, which again were established after consultation of the regional organizations and the ccTLDs present in London. The call for nominations was further sent out as a joint effort of the ccNSO and the Regional Organisations and included the criteria for selection. The call was sent out to all ccTLD managers, using the following channels: • The email list specifically created for the purpose to inform and engage all ccTLD managers as listed in the IANA Root Zone Database and based on the contact details as listed in the Root Zone Database; • Email lists maintained by the Regional ccTLD Organizations: AFTLD, APTLD, CENTR and LACTLD; • The ccNSO Members and ccTLD community email lists maintained by the ccNSO secretariat; I suspect that your question relates to how the issue of non-ccNSO participation was dealt with by the Selection Committee. In its report, the committee dealt with this aspect specifically: “The Committee members agreed that coordination group membership is open to members and non-¬‐members of the ccNSO. The Committee members further considered that membership and non-¬‐membership of the ccNSO should not be treated as a selection requirement as such, but should be considered a process requirement: all ccTLDs (independent of membership of the ccNSO) should have had a fair and equal opportunity to be selected for the Coordination Group. The Selection Committee agreed that the call for nomination, composition of the Selection Committee and selection criteria and process ensure that selection is independent of membership of the ccNSO.” In its June 6, 2014 announcement, ICANN indicated that it ‘strongly urges communities to adhere to diversity standards as they carry out their respective selection processes’. Reflecting this, the Selection Committee agreed that the geographic region of the nominee should be considered and that no more than two should be from the same geographic region. Balancing all of these criteria was difficult for the Selection Committee. The choice of the final four names was reached by consensus, but not unanimity. In closing let me repeat what the Selection Committee’s report said, that is, that all of the nominees met the selection criteria and had the high level skills and expertise to effectively represent the ccTLD community on this important group. Regards Byron Holland ------------------------------------------------------------ To: Byron Holland <byron.holland@cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>> CC: ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Report from the ccNSO Selection Committee on IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group References: <CFE44000.1E8A0%becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> In-Reply-To: <CFE44000.1E8A0%becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Byron, colleagues: As, both personally, and in my capacity as Councilmember, I had no objection to the Selection Committee's choices, I did /not/ raise any comment within the time scale mandated by the Chairman's email of July 10th. However I have just been made aware of objections originating from two ccTLD managers. They are, it seems, objecting to the Selection Committee's failure to appoint any Member of the Co-ordination Committee who comes from a non-ccNSO Member organisation. One of these managers making complaint comes from a ccTLD within ICANN's European region, and therefore I am obliged to bring their concerns to Council irrespective of my own views in the matter. From what they told me, they feel excluded from the process, and beleive that a significant part of the ccTLD community has been excluded. I have also been told that the other (non-EU) ccTLD has approached the ccNSO directly. Colleagues, I have every confidence in each of the selectees of the ad-hoc Selection Committee. This is however, so important, that, in my view, we can have no hint of any controversy. So perhaps if there was a way to accommodate a non-ccNSO member /in addition/ to the nominees, that might remove much of the perceived problem? Thoughts? Nigel Roberts (EU-region) On 07/10/2014 06:05 PM, Burr, Becky wrote: From: Byron Holland <byron.holland@cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca><mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>> Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014 at 1:00 PM To: "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org><mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] Report from the ccNSO Selection Committee on IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Dear Colleagues, On behalf of the Selection Committee, please find attached our report for adoption by the Council. The report was agreed unanimously by the Members of the Committee. Following the process as documented in the report, the Committee selected the following four ccTLD members for the Coordination Group: · Martin Boyle, .UK, EU region · Keith Davidson, .NZ, AP region · Xiaodong Lee, .CN. AP region · Mary Uduma, .NG, AF Region ICANN has scheduled the first meeting of the Coordination Group for July 18 & 19 in London. Given the need for those chosen to make travel arrangements, I will assume that unless I receive objections to the recommendation by 11:00 UTC, July 11, 2014 that Council has approved the recommendation. I have taken the precaution of informing all of the applicants of the Committee’s recommendation, given the urgency. Kind regards, Byron Holland