All, On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 01:37:26PM +0200, Alejandra Reynoso Barral via Ccnso-council wrote:
The Google doc access has been updated.
that made me add a number of comments to the doc and the proposed changes. There's one in particular that I think needs a bit more attention: "The ccNSO Council does not regard a potential appointee's employment by an ICANN contracted party to be any barrier. Already a number of ccTLD managers are also contracted parties and this is no barrier to ccNSO participation, including at the Council level. " Not sure what inspired this, but I do not think I agree - for a number of reasons, the easiest being that what is presented as a conclusion, or at least a precedent, doesn't hold. The fact that some ccTLD managers are "contracted" cannot limit their membership rights, which is something the additional Councillors don't bring. And, by the way, we explicitly ask for "no ccTLD affiliation" (for good reasons) which would be wrong if we followed the logic above. The fact that there might already be a bit of 'g' mixed in doesn't necessarily suggest to encourage more of that. Whatever the intention was, we should probably widen the scope of this advice. Noting that we do not state anything about non-contracted parties (still GNSO), ALAC, GAC, or others, I can only guess there was a specific observation from a more recent NomCom and the response turned into what I perceive as an explicit invitation. Best regards Peter