Dear all,

I’m in favor for option B.

Given, that I won’t be in office starting next week till beginning of September, option A is not feasible for me. I’ll have access to mail etc. but not planning to check it on a daily basis.

Best,

Peter

From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>
Date: Friday, 27 July 2018 at 18:05
To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org>
Subject: [ccnso-council] DECISION NEEDEDL: Two options for IFRT

Dear Councillors,

DECISION IS NEEDED

As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is – we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time.

The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use.

I am sending you two versions – version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two.

Version A.

The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds – during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet).

Pluses:

• it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate
• it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity – except regional diversity)

Minuses:

• the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements)
• does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair
• short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days)
• takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends)

Version B.

The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council’s choices as much as possible.

Pluses:

• simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three)
• longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days)
• might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy).

Minuses:

• the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome.

As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem – we need to act quickly.

Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference – Version A or Version B – to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F…), please feel free to do it.

If we agree on the procedure, then:

• 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest
• 21 August: closure of the call for EoI
• Depending on the preferred procedure:
  • Version A – 5 September: three members selected
  • Version B – 30 August: three members selected

Please let us know your preference by 5 August!

Kind regards,

]{atrina