Dear Ching, All, The more we talk about this, the more I realise that the choice of the name ‘Selection Committee’ was not a good one (to say the least). It is clearly misleading. We should have called it ‘Coordination Committee’ or something. Let me stress once more: 1. No, the Selection Committee will not search for candidates – everyone who is interested will have the opportunity to submit their Expression of Interest 2. No, the Selection Committee will not select who will be ccNSO members to the CSC – it will be done by all the Councillors who will be eligible to vote! 3. No, the Selection Committee will not develop any processes – it will follow the Guideline: ccNSO Actions Respecting the Customer Standing Committee. I’ll try to outline the process as described in the Guideline and put it on the timeline: 1. We launch the call for Expression on Interest (EoI) on 30 June 2. Everyone who is interested submits their EoI by 14 July and becomes a ‘Candidate’ 3. Every Councillor who is eligible to vote ranks all the Candidates who fulfil the requirements by 19 July (if I am not mistaken) 4. The Secretariat summarises all the rankings and we get 2 top candidates. If we cannot select 2 members because two or more candidates got the same number or votes, we need to run a second round and do it REALLY quickly. At this point we have 2 members selected by the ccNSO Council. With these 2 members the Selection Committee ‘meets’ the RySG because – and I quote the CWG proposal here – “The ccNSO and RySG should consult prior to finalizing their selections with a view to providing a slate of members and liaisons that has, to the extent possible, diversity in terms of geography and skill set.” We have 2 members who according to the ccNSO Council are the best, RySG have 2 members who according to the RySG are the best. We consult with each other as instructed by the CWG-Stewardship and establish the fact that we have 4 members for the CSC. Now, we need to approve the selection of these 2 candidates who already are selected by the ccNSO. We can do it: 1) By a vote of the full Council – ON THE CALL ONLY, as we will not have time for email vote. We will need to be quorate on this call! - OR – 2) We can authorise the Selection Committee to approve the 2 candidates already selected by the ccNSO Council. Whatever the procedure, we MUST submit the names of our 2 members to the ICANN Secretary by 22 July. All other SO/ACs are also asked to submit their candidates to the CSC by 22 July. Now, when we know all the candidates from all the SO/ACs, the Selection Committee and GNSO (or 3-4 people authorised by the GNSO Council) will consult because – and I quote the CWG-Stewardship proposal again – “While it will not be the role of the ccNSO and GNSO to question the validity of any recommended appointments to the CSC they will take into account the overall composition of the proposed CSC in terms of geographic diversity and skill sets.” These 10-12 people from both the ccNSO and the GNSO will work on the final slate to ensure the diversity. PLEASE NOTE – the members selected by the ccNSO and RySG WILL NOT BE TOUCHED. We have asked all those communities to submit two names instead of one name. That will HOPEFULLY give the Selection Committee and the GNSO the opportunity to work some diversity into the final slate. They will select one name from the two names submitted by other SO/ACs. The only objective here will be to ensure diversity. So, hopefully the Selection Committee and the GNSO will come up with a diverse slate of members (the ones selected by the ccNSO Council and the ones selected by the RySG prior to 22 July) and liaisons (one per other SO/ACs). This final slate also must be adopted.
From the ccNSO perspective it can be done in two ways:
1) by the full ccNSO Council vote again – we need to be quorate on a call somewhere around 28 July – 10 August – OR - 2) by the Selection Committee vote. I am not sure I managed to explain it clearer this time. Please do not hesitate to ask questions! I know how complicated it all is – it took us several months of reading and discussions to understand it (more or less). Kind regards, ]{atrina From: Ching Chiao [mailto:chiao@brandma.co] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 4:20 AM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Follow up on the CSC process Hi Katrina, Thanks for these notes and they are very helpful. First thing to add, if I may, is whether the selection committee proactively "search and select" candidates within the ccTLD community, or simply handle the selection as the current "nominate and select" approach. Both approaches should be fine as long as the community can be well-informed and participate the process. I also assume that, given the time constraint, that the Council will allow the selection committee to execute the ccNSO CSC selection guideline, meaning that 1) selection committee will come up with a decision-making process (under the guideline) , and 2) if any dispute or disagreement, the selection committee shall be held the accountable to and responsible for working out a solution. We should talk about these issues while in Helsinki. My two cents here and look forward to seeing you all next week. Safe travel! Best regards, Ching p.s. Please note that I am interested in serving as a member of selection committee as a nomcom appointee. On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv> > wrote: Dear Councillors, During our call we adopted the ccNSO Guideline on selection of the CSC. The core idea is that all the Councillors who have not put their name forward as a candidate will select the top candidates as ccTLD representatives on the CSC. We also agreed to establish a Selection Committee of 6 (six) Councillors - one from each of the five regions and one NomCom appointed Councillor. We agreed that the Selection Committee will: 1) consult with the RySG on the CSC members (as described in the CWG proposal and the CSC charter) and 2) consult with the GNSO on the full slate (members + liaisons) of the CSC (as described in the CWG proposal and the CSC Charter). At this stage the additional mandate of the group is still under discussion. The issue is whether: 1) the ccNSO Council votes on the final two candidates and on the full slate (as agreed between the Selection Committee and the RySG and Selection Committee and GNSO) or 2) the ccNSO Council authorises the Selection Committee to agree on the candidates with the RySG and on the full slate with the GNSO - AND - to adopt the full slate on behalf of the ccNSO Council. If the ccNSO Council mandates the Selection Committee to finalise the selection of the two (2) ccTLD representatives on the CSC after consultation with the RySG, the Selection committee should consult by email with the other Councillors who were eligible to vote before the names of the ccTLD representatives need to be sent to ICANN (22 July 23.59 UTC). As to the selection of the ccTLD representatives, note that it was agreed that the strongest candidates should be appointed. The diversity of the CSC should be considered through the candidates to the positions of liaisons. In practical terms it means, that the top 2 candidates should be considered to be selected. As to approval of the full slate (by the GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council) note that it will not be the role of the Councils to question the validity of any recommended appointment. The only consideration is the overall composition of the CSC in terms of geographic diversity and skill set. The SO/AC, who will be appointing liaisons to the CSC, were asked to select two (2) candidates from different geographic regions. Please also note that if we decide that the full ccNSO Council votes on the full slate, we will most probably need to set up a call somewhere between 28 July and 9 August - depending on how coordination between the Selection Committee and the GNSO goes - and we will need to be quorate on that call, even if one or two (more?) Councillors put their name forward! Please do not take that lightly! Failure to be quorate on this call could seriously impact the timing of the IANA Stewardship transition. One of the concerns in the event the Selection committee would be mandated to approve the full slate is that a Councillor may know something about a candidate that could influence the approval decision. To deal with such a concern the Selection committee should consult with the other Councillors who are eligible to vote by email before the coordination conversation with the GNSO starts. Finally, a technical item we did not discuss was how to select Councillors to the Selection Committee. I see two possible options: 1) the Councillors from each region and the three NomCom appointed Councillors agree among themselves who will serve on the Selection Committee. If the region cannot decide and there is more than one volunteer within a region, we do a lottery. 2) whoever applies first from the region/NomCom gets appointed to the Selection Committee. Please note that people on the Selection Committee must be available for intense consultations (including calls) between 20 July and 8 August and further that Selection Committee members must be eligible to vote. Which of the options you think would work the best? Maybe another suggestion? Something to think about while you travel to Helsinki. Safe travels and see you all next week! Thank you! Kindest regards, ]{atrina -- Ching Chiao Founder and CEO <http://www.Brandma.co> www.Brandma.co 中域国际集团 +886.918.211372 || +86.135.20187032 Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei