Dear Stephen,

I understand your frustration therefore let me explain the role of the Triage Committee (TC).

The ccNSO receives many requests (from ICANN, from other SOs/Acs, from WGs, etc.) asking for feedback. Some are relevant, some are not, but the ccNSO Council is supposed to deal with all of them. By ‘deal’ I mean 'to review and decide what to do'. To make things easier and to distribute the workload, at some point the ccNSO Council decided to create a Triage Committee. The whole idea of the TC is to review the requests and propose what to do with them. The TC is comprised of three Councillors who agree on the recommendations to the ccNSO Council (i.e., to the remaining 15 Councillors). The recommendations of the TC are what they are, i.e., recommendations of somebody who already looked into the matter. The Councillors may agree/disagree/propose other actions/anything. If no objections are received from the Councillors, the Secretariat implement the recommended actions. I think this is a reasonable approach – if every time we have to act we would have to wait for a ‘yes' or 'no' from each Councillor it would take forever (yes, a great achievement for democracy but hardly an efficient way to run the business).

To make it clearer let’s use the current example. In this case the ccNSO received information about the proposal and request for input. The TC recommends 1) to inform the community (done); 2) that the Chair of the ccNSO encourages the ccTLDs to take part in the process. These two recommendations are submitted to the ccNSO Council. In no way this should be viewed as a request for Councillors to give an input on the proposal! It’s a request to look at the two particular recommendations of the TC and either accept them or dismiss them, or propose other actions (what has already been done!).

Hope this clarifies! :-)

Kindest regards,

]{atrina

-- Katrina Sataki, CEO

emlogo

NIC.LV – The Registry of ccTLD .lv

Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science,

University of Latvia

Raina bulvaris 29, Riga LV-1459

Tel: +371 67085858 | Fax: +371 67225072 | Mobile: +371 29249666

E-mail: katrina@nic.lv | Skype: kat..s | Web: www.nic.lv

-- €

From: <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org> on behalf of Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as>
Organization: AS Domain Registry
Reply-To: <sdeerhake@nic.as>
Date: Tuesday 1 December 2015 19:44
To: 'Byron Holland' <byron.holland@cira.ca>
Cc: <ccnso-council@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] 46-2015: CCWG-Accountability - Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations

Byron,

I note that Gabi has forwarded to the Council a request from the Triage Committee that members respond to Triage suggestion 46-2015 by the end of the day tomorrow (02.12.15 23:59 UTC) with their opinions/comments on the 12 recommendations made as part of the 30 November 2015 "CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations".

Council members are being asked to weigh in on 12 recommendations described in 140 pages of primary documents (the "Annexes"), directly supported by an additional 99 pages of material, as well as 61 pages of Appendices. This is 300 pages of material in all.

I frankly do not see how it is realistic to expect Council members to consider this amount of material in the 34 hours that have been allotted us, let alone make any meaningful judgements about its content or for that matter, the specific recommendations.

Further, it is my understanding from ICANN Staff that the lack of proactive action on the part of a Council member with respect to Triage suggestion 46-2015 will be considered as that member having implicitedly given their consent to the recommendations of the CCWG.

I have to take exception to this "silence equals approval" notion, as what is being asked of us, given the timeframe available to us, is utterly unrealistic, even for those members who have been attempting to follow the work of the CCWG. The result of this flawed process will be a false impression of support for the recommendations of the CCWG. I submit this approach will not serve the interests of either the ccNSO Community, nor the larger ccTLD Community.

Best Regards,

Stephen Deerhake

AS Domain Registry (.as)

GDNS LLC