Dear All,

Thanks for all your comments!

To foster further discussion I’ll try to address your comments and questions.

VOTING:

Those who responded support the idea of having a sub-committee. Please note that according to the current plan in any case evaluation of candidates and selection of 2 CSC members from the ccNSO is done by full ccNSO Council (with exception of those Councillors who decide to apply for CSC, of course).

The role of the sub-committee we need to agree on is: do we want the sub-committee to only liaise with the RySG and GNSO – OR – we agree that the sub-committee also votes on the full slate on behalf of the ccNSO Council. Alejandra supported the first option. As far as I understand, Debbie also prefers the first option. What do others think? Please take into account that if we ask for a full ccNSO Council vote we will need a quorate ccNSO Council either on a call or via emails in early August! 

SELECTION:

In the guideline there will be requirements for CSC members and in their applications the candidates will be asked to meet these requirements. I think these requirements should be used to evaluate the candidates.

DIVERSITY:

We need to select people who know their stuff. At the same time, the CWG in their proposal clearly stated that diversity needs to be considered. Yes, we need knowledgeable people but are we ok if all the members of the CSC (2 from ccNSO and 2 from GNSO) are from the same region? If yes, we must be ready to 1) accept this risk and 2) justify our position.

Yes, we will coordinate the full slate with the GNSO and hopefully will be able to work on diversity. Other SO/ACs are asked to submit 2 candidates each even though they have only 1 seat each. We hope that this would give us (ccNSO and GNSO) a leverage to ensure diversity.

However, this might not be enough.

Your thoughts?

Kind regards,

]{atrina