Lesley, Thanks for your comments, I will include them in another update. As you said, your final point, converges into the second point Kind regards, BArt. From: Lesley Cowley <lesley-cowley@hotmail.co.uk<mailto:lesley-cowley@hotmail.co.uk>> Date: Friday, November 28, 2014 at 3:39 PM To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Cc: "ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>" <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Selection procedure candidates CCWG Accountability Thanks Bart. As predicted, I have a few comments: - If there are five or fewer candidates, I do not think that we should 'automatically' confirm them. For example, there may be a totally unsuitable candidate. I suggest that we should add into the text that their selection is 'subject to them meeting the selection criteria'. - it might also be helpful to cover what we actually do about the situation where there are less volunteers than we need, particularly as we will use this process as a template for other selections. I suggest we add text that 'if there are insufficient volunteers, the Council will, as they see fit, seek to fill any vacancies via co-option, a further call for volunteers or any such other process they determine to be suitable'. - I am unclear how the ranking of candidates process enables us to fully take into account regional and gender diversity etc. I understand that each Councillor will bear this in mind for their individual ranking, but because the individual rankings are then combined, we could well find that the outcome is not as diverse as we would like. I suggest that the Secretariat report to the Council (the one showing the ranking) should indicate the diversity aspects by noting the gender, ICANN region, and the relevant registry for each candidate. The Council should then be required to consider diversity before deciding to confirm the ranking results and 'may adjust the initial results if necessary for reasons of diversity'. - I do not understand why, after the initial selection of candidates the paper says that 'If, after compiling the list, two (2) to five (5) members can be appointed, the selection process is closed.' If we only have two people (for example) for 5 seats, we will need to find some way of filling those seats, as per my second comment above. Kind regards, Lesley Lesley Cowley, OBE Twitter: @lesleycowley On 28 Nov 2014, at 09:10, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please find included the revised selection process for candidates on the cross-community WG Accountability. Please send any comments back as soon as possible, before the secretariat sends out the CV's etc. Thank you , and kind regards, BArt <CCWG Accountability Selection process version 3.docx>