Duly noted Katrina. My mistake: I should have referred to the announcement for the call for volunteers, not to the call itself (which indeed did not go out yet). As a practical solution I would therefore - in the call for volunteers - encourage applicants to make that commitment. Thanks for pointing this out! Peter -----Original Message----- From: Katrina Sataki [mailto:katrina@nic.lv] Sent: 07 June 2016 22:20 To: Peter Van Roste <peter@centr.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community Dear Peter, To my great surprise I just noticed a phrase in your email:
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.
The call for candidates DID NOT go out! If you read the email that has been sent on Monday once more, I am sure you will notice that: 1) this is a letter informing the community about the process (the new bylaws, the letter from ICANN, the guideline, information we will give to the community in Helsinki) 2) in the letter we give a tentative date when the call for Expression on Interest (or the call for candidates) will be announced - around 30 June! Even the subject line is saying that the call ³is coming². Not that it is out. And now I am really worried. Did anyone else understand that the call is already out? Thanks! Regards, ]{atrina
-----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 ³customers²
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.