Hi Nick,
>Is there any precedent for size of committees, or do we usually just happily admit as many candidates as may be interested?
If there are no prescribed limits (e.g., like in case of CCWG on Auction Proceeds or CSC), we appoint everyone who is interested.
However, I see why you are concerned about the group getting too large. I think that every WG should annually ask members to reconfirm their willingness to participate in the work of the WG. I believe that some groups, e.g. SOPC, MPC, already do it. It’s a good way to ensure that people don’t stay on a WG or Committee just out of a habit.
Kind regards,
]{atrina
From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Joke Braeken
Sent: 16 July 2019 16:27
To: ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org>
Subject: [ccnso-council] formal appointment additional members to the ccNSO Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC).
Dear Councillors,
A number of additional candidates recently volunteered to join the IGLC.
Please find below the draft resolution, presented to you for an online decision. Kindly provide me with your input by the end of Friday, 19 July 2019, 23:59 UTC, in case you do not agree with the proposed resolution.
Appointment member
For decision
formal appointment members to the ccNSO Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC).
Draft Resolution
The ccNSO Council approves membership to the ccNSO Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC) for the following candidates:
· Souleymane Oumtanaga (.ci)
· Mustafa Sheik (.so)
· Andrey Romanov (.ru)
The secretariat is requested to take all other necessary steps to include them as a member of the IGLC, including informing the IGLC chair and ensuring that the candidates have signed the Data Consent Form.
Thank you.
Best regards.
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/