I also endorse Stephen's comments regarding the draft. I wholeheartedly support this letter as is, despite (or should that be 'notwithstanding') the fact that initially I was not overly concerned. As you heard on the Council call, I was quite quickly persuaded of the nature of the difficulty caused by NomCom repeatedly and persistently contravening their terms of engagement over the years, at least in my view. May I please, suggest we do not "Monday morning quarterback" as our US friends put it, and get this letter sent as soon as possible. I also feel the letter to the candidate should not be apologetic in turn. Whilst this "constitutional difficulty" may not be entirely of her making (if, indeed, it is at all), i think it only right that we are clear about what we are saying . . . And we should not weaken our message, which is an important one, particularly after the previous occasion(s) we have raised this precise matter, over the years. I would little more than: "Please find enclosed a copy of a letter we have today sent to the NomCom. Please be assured this letter should not be understood to mean that Council would not (for example. in other circumstances where you were NOT a Board Member or employee of a ccTLD manager) be more than happy to welcome you among our number." Or something similar. On 26/09/17 15:56, Stephen Deerhake wrote:

(Meant to cc the Council List)…

*From: *Stephen Deerhake <SDeerhake@nic.as> *Date: *Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:55 *To: *Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> *Subject: *Re: [ccnso-council] Draft letter

Greetings Katrina,

I wholeheartedly endorse the letter.  It is forceful, yet respectful, and makes it clear to all just how serious Council is taking this matter.

One editorial note:  The phrase “…not withstanding despite…” in the fifth paragraph (beginning “Council’s view (none dissenting…”)  needs to have the “despite” removed.

Other than that, it’s good to go in my view.

With regards to your questions:

1. As this is at its core a bit of an ICANN “constitutional crisis”, given that we are protesting the seating of a NomCom appointment to Council, I think JJ should be on the copy list. 2. I believe that we should compose an additional letter to Ms. Moll, if for no other reason than to assure her that we (Council) have no issue with her as an accomplished person; rather, our issue is (a) the NomCom’s ignoring explicit advice the ccNSO issued to them in 2012, which, had it been followed in this case, would have prevented this issue from arising in the first place, and (b) the imbalance this appointment causes within Council.  Based on her Bio, I think she would be an asset in almost any volunteer position within the ICANN ecosphere, just not the slot she has just been appointed to.

Thanks for your effort on this.

Best Regards,

/S

*From: *<ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> *Date: *Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:25 *To: *"ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *[ccnso-council] Draft letter

Dear Councillors,

As agreed at the last Council call, I am attaching a draft for the letter to be sent to the NomCom and ICANN Board.

* Please have a look at the draft and let me know your views, suggestions, edits, etc. * There was a proposal to inform also ICANN Legal Council John Jeffrey. Do you support the proposal? (why yes or no?) * In the letter it it is mentioned that we are going to write a separate letter to Ms Moll to share our concerns and ask for her opinion on the conflict. This letter still needs to be drafted (if we agree that we should send one).

Kind regards,

]{atrina

_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council