Hi Barrack,

Thank you very much for your comment!

I agree with your point. BUT! Please take into account:

1) we have to select only 2 members. As Alejandra rightfully pointed out, there's no much room for diversity. We have 5 regions, we have really big, medium-sized and small registries. We have ccTLDs run by private comapnies, governmental institutions, academic institutions, NGOs, not for profit organisations, etc. 2 seats!!!

2) I think that this time it is not only about representation and goodwill. If we needed to choose a dentist, for example, we would not think "Our eye doctor is old and comes from Europe, the surgeon is a young Brazilian, psychotherapist is very small and skinny - so, the dentist must be a big woman from Australia" No, we would look for a professional who knows how to fix an aching tooth. If the big woman from Australia happens to be a superb dentist - it's wonderful. But if she does not have a clue, then better not to let her touch our teeth. I think this is what my colleagues councillors mean when they say that knowledge of IANA system should be prior to other considerations.

3) the diversity of the entire CSC composition should be considered. But! Liaisons do not vote. Members do. Therefore the members we select must be professionals who are able to soothe our toothache.

Thanks!

Regards,

]{atrina 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barrack Otieno [mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 2:14 PM
To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>
Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] FW: ATTENTION! Information on CSC

Hi Katrina,

I would like to emphasize on one point diversity. We should strive to be diverse since it always attracts goodwill due to the fact that it enhances representation.

Regards

On 6/1/16, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear All,

Thanks for all your comments!

To foster further discussion I’ll try to address your comments and 
questions.

VOTING:

Those who responded support the idea of having a sub-committee. Please 
note that according to the current plan in any case evaluation of 
candidates and selection of 2 CSC members from the ccNSO is done by 
full ccNSO Council (with exception of those Councillors who decide to 
apply for CSC, of course).

The role of the sub-committee we need to agree on is: do we want the 
sub-committee to only liaise with the RySG and GNSO – OR – we agree 
that the sub-committee also votes on the full slate on behalf of the ccNSO Council.
Alejandra supported the first option. As far as I understand, Debbie 
also prefers the first option. What do others think? Please take into 
account that if we ask for a full ccNSO Council vote we will need a 
quorate ccNSO Council either on a call or via emails in early August!

SELECTION:

In the guideline there will be requirements for CSC members and in 
their applications the candidates will be asked to meet these 
requirements. I think these requirements should be used to evaluate the candidates.

DIVERSITY:

We need to select people who know their stuff. At the same time, the 
CWG in their proposal clearly stated that diversity needs to be 
considered. Yes, we need knowledgeable people but are we ok if all the 
members of the CSC (2 from ccNSO and 2 from GNSO) are from the same 
region? If yes, we must be ready to 1) accept this risk and 2) justify our position.

Yes, we will coordinate the full slate with the GNSO and hopefully 
will be able to work on diversity. Other SO/ACs are asked to submit 2 
candidates each even though they have only 1 seat each. We hope that 
this would give us (ccNSO and GNSO) a leverage to ensure diversity.

However, this might not be enough.

Your thoughts?

Kind regards,

]{atrina

--
Barrack O. Otieno
+254721325277
+254733206359
Skype: barrack.otieno
PGP ID: 0x2611D86A