Dear Colleagues,

Thank you very much for all your comments.

As to Alejandra’s question:

>Maybe it is an issue of format incompatibility, but the numbering is odd. Going from I. to (ii) to (B) 😅

No, it’s not a formatisation issue. It is a quote from the Bylaws, hence, the strange numbering ☺

I did not find any reference to the expected time commitment, did you? I added that as additional question.

I tried to summarise and formalize the feedback. Please see if that reflects all your points:

---

The ccNSO Council supports the draft ToR; however, the timelines seem overly optimistic and ambitious. Please note, that the ccNSO would need at least 3 weeks to issue a call for volunteers and select members to the group.

On specific points raised in the documents, the ccNSO Council would like to propose:

• Composition of the IRP Community Rep Group: Preferably, one representative but, definitely, no more than two representatives from each SO/AC.
• Confidentiality: the process could copy (to the extent applicable) the process already in place for the NomCom. No observers should be allowed. Locked wiki space should be provided to facilitate effective and efficient collaboration within the group. Recordings should be made but not published. Brief high-level notes should be taken.
• Transparency: once appointments are made, the background and qualifications of the appointees should be made public.
• Decision making: preference by consensus, but if necessary decisions by majority vote with the chair having a casting vote.
• Chair: the group should be allowed to select the chair.
• Additional comments: for a 3-4 month project there is no need to have a process to replace members. If SO/ACs decide there is a need for such a process, SO/ACs should have possible replacement already selected and ready to step in.

In addition, the ccNSO Council would like to understand the estimated time commitment expected from group members.

---

Let me know if something is missing or misinterpreted!

Kind regards,

]{atrina