Dear councillors,

This is reminder regarding the email below.

Your action is required by Friday, 31 May 2019 (noon UTC).

Best regards,

Joke Braeken

ccNSO Policy Advisor

joke.braeken@icann.org

Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO

Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/

http://ccnso.icann.org

From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>
Date: Friday, 24 May 2019 at 11:43
To: ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org>
Subject: [ccnso-council] invitation to draft a council statement : your action is required by Friday, 31 May 2019 (noon UTC)

Dear Council members,

On behalf of Joke:

I am following up on Triage recommendation 25-2019 (Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model), which was recently approved by the ccNSO Council.

Your action is required by Friday, 31 May 2019 (noon UTC).

The recommendation specified that a Council statement is needed, as defined in https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_47783/guidelines-statements-30mar16-en.pdf Close date for public comments is 4 Jun 2019 23:59 UTC

Short summary:

Building on the conversation at ICANN64, a public comment invites the community to further define issues that challenge the effectiveness of ICANN's multistakeholder model.

= = = = =

|||| Your action is required |||

Kindly review the instructions included below, and provide input to the google document with the draft council statement.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nbKFm1f_eK23tz7E_ym7C-t_2n0XrQWDEx049Fb-poc/edit?usp=sharing

Deadline for this: Friday, 31 May 2019 (noon UTC), allowing for sufficient time to produce a final version of the Council statement.

= = = = =

Instructions

Commenters should refer to the draft "Issues List" that reflects input received from the ICANN community about how to improve the effectiveness of ICANN's multistakeholder model. We welcome all comments, and encourage you to focus on the following:

For each issue, or your issues of interest, provide a specific example about how the issue hampers the effectiveness of ICANN's multistakeholder model. Be sure to provide a specific and clear articulation of the issue so that it is clearly and fully defined. Please provide fact-based examples only. If offering a "new" issue to be considered, provide a clear articulation of the issue along with fact-based examples and a rationale about how the issue is hampering the effectiveness of ICANN's multistakeholder model. If you believe that an issue or issues do not belong on the Issues List, provide a rationale as to why the issue or issues should be removed.

Commenters are also invited to offer prioritization of the issues on the Issues List. When offering prioritization, carefully consider the following:

Issues that, if they are constructively addressed and solutions can be found, would have the greatest impact in making ICANN's multistakeholder model more effective and efficient.
Whether there are interdependencies between any of the issues that you are prioritizing. That is to say, for issue "A" to be addressed a solution for issue "B" must be addressed as well to achieve improvements in the effective functioning of ICANN's multistakeholder model.
Which issues could favorably impact the effectiveness of ICANN's multistakeholder model at a potentially lower cost?
Which issues could favorable impact the effectiveness of ICANN's multistakeholder model without introduction of unnecessary layers of process or bureaucracy?
Which issues could be combined or consolidated because their nature is so similar? When considering consolidating issues, carefully consider whether there are any interdependencies that argue against consolidation.