Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community
Dear Colleagues, Please see below the request for Appointment of Members and Liaisons to the CSC sent by ICANN to SO/ACs. Now it's time to inform the community. Here's the draft letter we'd like to send as soon as possible - big thanks to David McAuley (GRC) for taking the lead and drafting it. If you have any comments/suggestions/corrections, please do not hesitate to let me know as soon as possible. I think we need to send this out to the community not later than on Monday: -------------------- Dear Colleagues, On Friday, May 27, the ICANN Board approved the new ICANN Bylaws for IANA Stewardship Transition, deemed to be effective upon the expiration of the IANA Functions Contract between ICANN and NTIA. You will note that Article 17 of the new bylaws calls for the creation of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC). The CSC's role will be to monitor the performance of the Post Transition IANA entity (PTI), which will perform the IANA Functions relevant for the ccTLDs post transition (see: https://www.icann.org/iana_imp_docs/43-csc-scope-and-responsibilities-v-v2) . The ccNSO has to appoint two members representing ccTLD registry operators (the ccTLD manager does NOT have to be a member of the ccNSO) according to the internal procedures of the ccNSO. On 2 June 2016 the ccNSO Council received the request to appoint members to the Customer Standing Committee by 22 July 2016 (--include link--). Since April 2016 the ccNSO is working on a new guideline with respect to the selection and appointment of the ccTLD members on the CSC and related aspects. It is expected that the ccNSO Council will adopt the guideline at its meeting on 16 June. During the ccNSO meeting in Helsinki more detailed information on the entire process will be presented to the community and the formal call for expressions of interest will be issued on or around 30 June. This will, unfortunately, provide a very limited application window (two weeks) to meet the deadline of 22 July 2016. In order to enable interested candidates to prepare and send in their application within the envisioned tight application window, we will provide all the necessary information about the requirements and documents that have to be submitted. Expression of Interest will require a candidate to indicate how she or he meets at least the following requirements: - Direct experience and knowledge of the IANA naming function - Analytical skills, ability to interpret quantitative and qualitative evidence, and capacity to draw conclusions purely based on evidence - Able to work and communicate in written and spoken English - Effective communication skills - Experience in managing and/or participating in committees (e.g. meeting coordination, reporting, and escalation) in order to contribute meaningfully to CSC processes - Demonstrated ability in relationship management to support diplomatic discussion, consensus driven decision making, and productive negotiation In addition, the call will ask the applicant to submit at least the following: - Explanation of the interest in becoming a member of the CSC - A resume, curriculum vitae or biography in support of the Expression of Interest; - If employed by a ccTLD manager, a letter of support for the appointment signed by a member of candidate's organization's senior management; and - An indication whether the candidate is available to be elected for a 2 or 3-year term. In the course of the upcoming weeks I will keep you updated on the progress made. Kind regards, ------------------------ Thank you! Regards, ]{atrina From: Trang Nguyen [mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:52 AM To: jbladel@godaddy.com; pdiaz@pir.org; patrik@frobbit.se; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; oscar@lacnic.net; katrina@nic.lv; bverd@verisign.com; Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch; tsinha@umd.edu Cc: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org>; Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org>; Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes@icann.org>; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@icann.org>; Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@icann.org>; Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; 'jrobinson@afilias.info' <jrobinson@afilias.info>; Lise Fuhr <Fuhr@etno.eu>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>; Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org> Subject: Request for Appointment of Members and Liaisons to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Dear Chairs and Co-Chairs, Please see attached a request from ICANN for appointment of members and liaisons to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC). Warm regards, Trang Nguyen Senior Director, Strategic Programs ICANN
Hi Katrina, Thank you (and David) for the work on this. I am missing one things: 1. the commitment from candidates to brief the ccTLD community - in person at the ccNSO meeting or RO meetings or via email - on a regular basis I would also rephrase one sentence: From _If employed by a ccTLD manager, a letter of support for the appointment signed by a member of candidate's organization's senior management;_ To A letter of support for the appointment signed by a member of the candidate's organisation's senior management; We would also need to add a requirement to reflect last week's discussions: - Demostrated employment by a ccTLD manager a commitment to hand in her/his resignation from the CSC to the ccNSO council upon leaving that employment Regards, Peter From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: 03 June 2016 09:54 To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community Dear Colleagues, Please see below the request for Appointment of Members and Liaisons to the CSC sent by ICANN to SO/ACs. Now it's time to inform the community. Here's the draft letter we'd like to send as soon as possible - big thanks to David McAuley (GRC) for taking the lead and drafting it. If you have any comments/suggestions/corrections, please do not hesitate to let me know as soon as possible. I think we need to send this out to the community not later than on Monday: -------------------- Dear Colleagues, On Friday, May 27, the ICANN Board approved the new ICANN Bylaws for IANA Stewardship Transition, deemed to be effective upon the expiration of the IANA Functions Contract between ICANN and NTIA. You will note that Article 17 of the new bylaws calls for the creation of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC). The CSC's role will be to monitor the performance of the Post Transition IANA entity (PTI), which will perform the IANA Functions relevant for the ccTLDs post transition (see: https://www.icann.org/iana_imp_docs/43-csc-scope-and-responsibilities-v-v2) . The ccNSO has to appoint two members representing ccTLD registry operators (the ccTLD manager does NOT have to be a member of the ccNSO) according to the internal procedures of the ccNSO. On 2 June 2016 the ccNSO Council received the request to appoint members to the Customer Standing Committee by 22 July 2016 (--include link--). Since April 2016 the ccNSO is working on a new guideline with respect to the selection and appointment of the ccTLD members on the CSC and related aspects. It is expected that the ccNSO Council will adopt the guideline at its meeting on 16 June. During the ccNSO meeting in Helsinki more detailed information on the entire process will be presented to the community and the formal call for expressions of interest will be issued on or around 30 June. This will, unfortunately, provide a very limited application window (two weeks) to meet the deadline of 22 July 2016. In order to enable interested candidates to prepare and send in their application within the envisioned tight application window, we will provide all the necessary information about the requirements and documents that have to be submitted. Expression of Interest will require a candidate to indicate how she or he meets at least the following requirements: - Direct experience and knowledge of the IANA naming function - Analytical skills, ability to interpret quantitative and qualitative evidence, and capacity to draw conclusions purely based on evidence - Able to work and communicate in written and spoken English - Effective communication skills - Experience in managing and/or participating in committees (e.g. meeting coordination, reporting, and escalation) in order to contribute meaningfully to CSC processes - Demonstrated ability in relationship management to support diplomatic discussion, consensus driven decision making, and productive negotiation In addition, the call will ask the applicant to submit at least the following: - Explanation of the interest in becoming a member of the CSC - A resume, curriculum vitae or biography in support of the Expression of Interest; - If employed by a ccTLD manager, a letter of support for the appointment signed by a member of candidate's organization's senior management; and - An indication whether the candidate is available to be elected for a 2 or 3-year term. In the course of the upcoming weeks I will keep you updated on the progress made. Kind regards, ------------------------ Thank you! Regards, ]{atrina From: Trang Nguyen [mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:52 AM To: jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; pdiaz@pir.org<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org>; patrik@frobbit.se<mailto:patrik@frobbit.se>; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; oscar@lacnic.net<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>; katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>; bverd@verisign.com<mailto:bverd@verisign.com>; Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>; tsinha@umd.edu<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu> Cc: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>; Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org<mailto:Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org>>; Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes@icann.org<mailto:carlos.reyes@icann.org>>; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>; Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@icann.org<mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org>>; Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@icann.org<mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org>>; Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; 'jrobinson@afilias.info' <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>; Lise Fuhr <Fuhr@etno.eu<mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>; Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>> Subject: Request for Appointment of Members and Liaisons to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Dear Chairs and Co-Chairs, Please see attached a request from ICANN for appointment of members and liaisons to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC). Warm regards, Trang Nguyen Senior Director, Strategic Programs ICANN
Peter Thank you for this suggestion.
-Demostrated employment by a ccTLD manager a commitment to hand in her/his resignation from the CSC to the ccNSO council upon leaving that employment
I'm a little unsure at this ti me whether the ccNSO has the ability (like some Member States try with EU law implementation) to "gold-plate" the ICANN By-Laws which are specifically intended (at least by the ICANN board and staff at the time) that appointees serve in an individual capacity, not ex officio. And I'm not sure this is a principle that we necessarily wish to impose en passant without serious futher debate and discussion throughout the ccNSO Membership, and consulation (if only informally) with the ICANN legal and the ICANN Board. It has implications for Councillors and for Board Members. The situation with our two ccNSO appointed Board Members is that at least one (and possibly both) are no longer employed by a ccTLD manager. I do not recommend making such a change just yet, but it is something we must discuss in depth as soon as we can.
Hi Nigel Apologies to butt in here. This is a CUSTOMER standing committee. I have no issue with persons needing to be CUSTOMER representatives. Accordingly, if the entity being represented by the individual ceases to be a customer (for example a redelegation) or if the individual ceases to represent the customer (for example retirement, resignation etc) then I think it is entirely appropriate for that person to be regarded as no longer appropriate to serve on a CUSTOMER standing committee. Personally I think that it should be an OPTION to remove a person in those circumstances, but not obligatory. A person may have more time to contribute post-retirement (for example), but after a while if not actively involved in interacting with IANA, their knowledge will start going stale. So obligatory could be appropriate too – I don’t have a very strong attachment to it being optional. The ccNSO board appointees are appointed in their personal capacity. I have NEVER been employed by a ccTLD manager and this has been known to the ccNSO before I joined. Likewise the Council is appointed by ccTLDs but not restricted to ccTLD employees and there have been some on the council who are not EMPLOYED by a ccTLD manager. I don’t agree with your view that appointing customer standing committee members based on them being a customer has any implications for ccNSO council members or board appointees – as we are not representatives in either of those for a – nor are we “customer” representatives. Mike On 06/06/2016, 11:54, "Nigel Roberts" <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Peter
Thank you for this suggestion.
-Demostrated employment by a ccTLD manager a commitment to hand in her/his resignation from the CSC to the ccNSO council upon leaving that employment
I'm a little unsure at this ti me whether the ccNSO has the ability (like some Member States try with EU law implementation) to "gold-plate" the ICANN By-Laws which are specifically intended (at least by the ICANN board and staff at the time) that appointees serve in an individual capacity, not ex officio.
And I'm not sure this is a principle that we necessarily wish to impose en passant without serious futher debate and discussion throughout the ccNSO Membership, and consulation (if only informally) with the ICANN legal and the ICANN Board.
It has implications for Councillors and for Board Members.
The situation with our two ccNSO appointed Board Members is that at least one (and possibly both) are no longer employed by a ccTLD manager.
I do not recommend making such a change just yet, but it is something we must discuss in depth as soon as we can.
Mike Thanks for the input. It is much appreciated. As a representative from the ccNSO you have to be aware that there is a significant understanding from many participants that in order to be 'a member of the ccNSO' one has to be employed by a ccTLD. Now, you and I both know that this is incorrect. A person is never a member of the ccNSO -- it is an organisation. But nonetheless this perception persists. It was voiced to me from several directions in respect of Lesley Cowley's continued membership of Council following her resignation from .UK. And I have heard it in other contexts. more recently, too. I think that appointments that are governed by the by-laws have to be fulfilled in accordance with the ICANN by-laws, and not by other rules. If other rules are needed, we must discuss, and -- with the benefit of professional advice -- embed those rules in the by-laws. What this all means is when a person is appointed in a personal capacity according to the by-laws, then they continue to serve, irrespective of by whom they are employed. I think we agree on this vehemently. On 06/06/16 14:08, Mike Silber wrote:
Hi Nigel
Apologies to butt in here.
This is a CUSTOMER standing committee. I have no issue with persons needing to be CUSTOMER representatives. Accordingly, if the entity being represented by the individual ceases to be a customer (for example a redelegation) or if the individual ceases to represent the customer (for example retirement, resignation etc) then I think it is entirely appropriate for that person to be regarded as no longer appropriate to serve on a CUSTOMER standing committee.
Personally I think that it should be an OPTION to remove a person in those circumstances, but not obligatory. A person may have more time to contribute post-retirement (for example), but after a while if not actively involved in interacting with IANA, their knowledge will start going stale. So obligatory could be appropriate too – I don’t have a very strong attachment to it being optional.
The ccNSO board appointees are appointed in their personal capacity. I have NEVER been employed by a ccTLD manager and this has been known to the ccNSO before I joined. Likewise the Council is appointed by ccTLDs but not restricted to ccTLD employees and there have been some on the council who are not EMPLOYED by a ccTLD manager.
I don’t agree with your view that appointing customer standing committee members based on them being a customer has any implications for ccNSO council members or board appointees – as we are not representatives in either of those for a – nor are we “customer” representatives.
Mike
On 06/06/2016, 11:54, "Nigel Roberts" <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Peter
Thank you for this suggestion.
-Demostrated employment by a ccTLD manager a commitment to hand in her/his resignation from the CSC to the ccNSO council upon leaving that employment
I'm a little unsure at this ti me whether the ccNSO has the ability (like some Member States try with EU law implementation) to "gold-plate" the ICANN By-Laws which are specifically intended (at least by the ICANN board and staff at the time) that appointees serve in an individual capacity, not ex officio.
And I'm not sure this is a principle that we necessarily wish to impose en passant without serious futher debate and discussion throughout the ccNSO Membership, and consulation (if only informally) with the ICANN legal and the ICANN Board.
It has implications for Councillors and for Board Members.
The situation with our two ccNSO appointed Board Members is that at least one (and possibly both) are no longer employed by a ccTLD manager.
I do not recommend making such a change just yet, but it is something we must discuss in depth as soon as we can.
Good to hear Nigel However, as the CSC is outside of the ccNSO structures – I think it is entirely appropriate to deviate from the norm in the case of the CSC and require the representatives to that committee to be employees of active IANA “customers” Regards Mike On 07/06/2016, 00:33, "Nigel Roberts" <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Mike
Thanks for the input. It is much appreciated.
As a representative from the ccNSO you have to be aware that there is a significant understanding from many participants that in order to be 'a member of the ccNSO' one has to be employed by a ccTLD.
Now, you and I both know that this is incorrect. A person is never a member of the ccNSO -- it is an organisation.
But nonetheless this perception persists.
It was voiced to me from several directions in respect of Lesley Cowley's continued membership of Council following her resignation from .UK. And I have heard it in other contexts. more recently, too.
I think that appointments that are governed by the by-laws have to be fulfilled in accordance with the ICANN by-laws, and not by other rules. If other rules are needed, we must discuss, and -- with the benefit of professional advice -- embed those rules in the by-laws.
What this all means is when a person is appointed in a personal capacity according to the by-laws, then they continue to serve, irrespective of by whom they are employed.
I think we agree on this vehemently.
If the GNSO is doing the same, and it's in the by-laws, then obviously so. But if not, our approach should be the same as the GNSO. Or are you arguing that ccNSO representatives need to be more tied to 'customers' than gNSO representatives? Either way, it brings back to the fore the discussion than ccNSO Council Members and ccNSO Board members somehow "should" be "ccTLDs". As I've said, I can't find it in myself to get worked up about it, so I do not personally support this idea. I think the status quo (personal capacity) is entirely perfectly acceptable (if not necessarily how I'd have designed it). So you and I are in agreement here. However I know many people in the ccNSO do disagree with this, and this is a discussion we (Council and the ccNSO) need to have to avoid the kind of corridor mutterings we've had in the past (e.g. regarding Lesley's membership of Council) continuing. On 07/06/16 08:22, Mike Silber wrote:
Good to hear Nigel
However, as the CSC is outside of the ccNSO structures – I think it is entirely appropriate to deviate from the norm in the case of the CSC and require the representatives to that committee to be employees of active IANA “customers”
Regards
Mike
On 07/06/2016, 00:33, "Nigel Roberts" <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Mike
Thanks for the input. It is much appreciated.
As a representative from the ccNSO you have to be aware that there is a significant understanding from many participants that in order to be 'a member of the ccNSO' one has to be employed by a ccTLD.
Now, you and I both know that this is incorrect. A person is never a member of the ccNSO -- it is an organisation.
But nonetheless this perception persists.
It was voiced to me from several directions in respect of Lesley Cowley's continued membership of Council following her resignation from .UK. And I have heard it in other contexts. more recently, too.
I think that appointments that are governed by the by-laws have to be fulfilled in accordance with the ICANN by-laws, and not by other rules. If other rules are needed, we must discuss, and -- with the benefit of professional advice -- embed those rules in the by-laws.
What this all means is when a person is appointed in a personal capacity according to the by-laws, then they continue to serve, irrespective of by whom they are employed.
I think we agree on this vehemently.
Hi Nigel, I get your point about ICANN Board members and ccNSO councillors although I personally believe it is a different issue. I don't get your point about the gNSO. However, I do believe it is up to the ccNSO to decide what it expects from its reps on the CSC. We all worked hard to get us to a point where as customers, we have a tool to monitor performance of the essential IANA function. Remember that the CSC is the starting point of quite a few escalation mechanisms. Why would we jeopardize this big step forward by shying away from holding our reps to the highest standard? I find it slightly bizarre that this is even an issue. With reference to your point on the Bylaws: I don't know them by heart, but I can't remember reading that the Bylaws specify who the ccNSO should appoint to the CSC, let alone put in place modalities on how this should happen. I think it is entirely up to the ccNSO to ask for this commitment and I am disappointed that the call for candidates went out without a reference to this issue. I would strongly advice the Council (or the sub-committee that will decide on it) to ask shortlisted candidates to make this commitment before making the final decision. Regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 07 June 2016 11:43 To: Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community If the GNSO is doing the same, and it's in the by-laws, then obviously so. But if not, our approach should be the same as the GNSO. Or are you arguing that ccNSO representatives need to be more tied to 'customers' than gNSO representatives? Either way, it brings back to the fore the discussion than ccNSO Council Members and ccNSO Board members somehow "should" be "ccTLDs". As I've said, I can't find it in myself to get worked up about it, so I do not personally support this idea. I think the status quo (personal capacity) is entirely perfectly acceptable (if not necessarily how I'd have designed it). So you and I are in agreement here. However I know many people in the ccNSO do disagree with this, and this is a discussion we (Council and the ccNSO) need to have to avoid the kind of corridor mutterings we've had in the past (e.g. regarding Lesley's membership of Council) continuing. On 07/06/16 08:22, Mike Silber wrote:
Good to hear Nigel
However, as the CSC is outside of the ccNSO structures – I think it is entirely appropriate to deviate from the norm in the case of the CSC and require the representatives to that committee to be employees of active IANA “customers”
Regards
Mike
On 07/06/2016, 00:33, "Nigel Roberts" <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Mike
Thanks for the input. It is much appreciated.
As a representative from the ccNSO you have to be aware that there is a significant understanding from many participants that in order to be 'a member of the ccNSO' one has to be employed by a ccTLD.
Now, you and I both know that this is incorrect. A person is never a member of the ccNSO -- it is an organisation.
But nonetheless this perception persists.
It was voiced to me from several directions in respect of Lesley Cowley's continued membership of Council following her resignation from .UK. And I have heard it in other contexts. more recently, too.
I think that appointments that are governed by the by-laws have to be fulfilled in accordance with the ICANN by-laws, and not by other rules. If other rules are needed, we must discuss, and -- with the benefit of professional advice -- embed those rules in the by-laws.
What this all means is when a person is appointed in a personal capacity according to the by-laws, then they continue to serve, irrespective of by whom they are employed.
I think we agree on this vehemently.
Dear Peter, To my great surprise I just noticed a phrase in your email:
I think it is entirely up to the ccNSO to ask for this commitment and I am disappointed that the call for candidates went out without a reference to this issue.
The call for candidates DID NOT go out! If you read the email that has been sent on Monday once more, I am sure you will notice that: 1) this is a letter informing the community about the process (the new bylaws, the letter from ICANN, the guideline, information we will give to the community in Helsinki) 2) in the letter we give a tentative date when the call for Expression on Interest (or the call for candidates) will be announced - around 30 June! Even the subject line is saying that the call ³is coming². Not that it is out. And now I am really worried. Did anyone else understand that the call is already out? Thanks! Regards, ]{atrina
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 07 June 2016 11:43 To: Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community
If the GNSO is doing the same, and it's in the by-laws, then obviously so.
But if not, our approach should be the same as the GNSO.
Or are you arguing that ccNSO representatives need to be more tied to 'customers' than gNSO representatives?
Either way, it brings back to the fore the discussion than ccNSO Council Members and ccNSO Board members somehow "should" be "ccTLDs".
As I've said, I can't find it in myself to get worked up about it, so I do not personally support this idea.
I think the status quo (personal capacity) is entirely perfectly acceptable (if not necessarily how I'd have designed it). So you and I are in agreement here.
However I know many people in the ccNSO do disagree with this, and this is a discussion we (Council and the ccNSO) need to have to avoid the kind of corridor mutterings we've had in the past (e.g. regarding Lesley's membership of Council) continuing.
On 07/06/16 08:22, Mike Silber wrote:
Good to hear Nigel
However, as the CSC is outside of the ccNSO structures I think it is entirely appropriate to deviate from the norm in the case of the CSC and require the representatives to that committee to be employees of active IANA ³customers²
Regards
Mike
On 07/06/2016, 00:33, "Nigel Roberts" <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Mike
Thanks for the input. It is much appreciated.
As a representative from the ccNSO you have to be aware that there is a significant understanding from many participants that in order to be 'a member of the ccNSO' one has to be employed by a ccTLD.
Now, you and I both know that this is incorrect. A person is never a member of the ccNSO -- it is an organisation.
But nonetheless this perception persists.
It was voiced to me from several directions in respect of Lesley Cowley's continued membership of Council following her resignation from .UK. And I have heard it in other contexts. more recently, too.
I think that appointments that are governed by the by-laws have to be fulfilled in accordance with the ICANN by-laws, and not by other rules. If other rules are needed, we must discuss, and -- with the benefit of professional advice -- embed those rules in the by-laws.
What this all means is when a person is appointed in a personal capacity according to the by-laws, then they continue to serve, irrespective of by whom they are employed.
I think we agree on this vehemently.
Duly noted Katrina. My mistake: I should have referred to the announcement for the call for volunteers, not to the call itself (which indeed did not go out yet). As a practical solution I would therefore - in the call for volunteers - encourage applicants to make that commitment. Thanks for pointing this out! Peter -----Original Message----- From: Katrina Sataki [mailto:katrina@nic.lv] Sent: 07 June 2016 22:20 To: Peter Van Roste <peter@centr.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community Dear Peter, To my great surprise I just noticed a phrase in your email:
I think it is entirely up to the ccNSO to ask for this commitment and I am disappointed that the call for candidates went out without a reference to this issue.
The call for candidates DID NOT go out! If you read the email that has been sent on Monday once more, I am sure you will notice that: 1) this is a letter informing the community about the process (the new bylaws, the letter from ICANN, the guideline, information we will give to the community in Helsinki) 2) in the letter we give a tentative date when the call for Expression on Interest (or the call for candidates) will be announced - around 30 June! Even the subject line is saying that the call ³is coming². Not that it is out. And now I am really worried. Did anyone else understand that the call is already out? Thanks! Regards, ]{atrina
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 07 June 2016 11:43 To: Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community
If the GNSO is doing the same, and it's in the by-laws, then obviously so.
But if not, our approach should be the same as the GNSO.
Or are you arguing that ccNSO representatives need to be more tied to 'customers' than gNSO representatives?
Either way, it brings back to the fore the discussion than ccNSO Council Members and ccNSO Board members somehow "should" be "ccTLDs".
As I've said, I can't find it in myself to get worked up about it, so I do not personally support this idea.
I think the status quo (personal capacity) is entirely perfectly acceptable (if not necessarily how I'd have designed it). So you and I are in agreement here.
However I know many people in the ccNSO do disagree with this, and this is a discussion we (Council and the ccNSO) need to have to avoid the kind of corridor mutterings we've had in the past (e.g. regarding Lesley's membership of Council) continuing.
On 07/06/16 08:22, Mike Silber wrote:
Good to hear Nigel
However, as the CSC is outside of the ccNSO structures I think it is entirely appropriate to deviate from the norm in the case of the CSC and require the representatives to that committee to be employees of active IANA ³customers²
Regards
Mike
On 07/06/2016, 00:33, "Nigel Roberts" <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Mike
Thanks for the input. It is much appreciated.
As a representative from the ccNSO you have to be aware that there is a significant understanding from many participants that in order to be 'a member of the ccNSO' one has to be employed by a ccTLD.
Now, you and I both know that this is incorrect. A person is never a member of the ccNSO -- it is an organisation.
But nonetheless this perception persists.
It was voiced to me from several directions in respect of Lesley Cowley's continued membership of Council following her resignation from .UK. And I have heard it in other contexts. more recently, too.
I think that appointments that are governed by the by-laws have to be fulfilled in accordance with the ICANN by-laws, and not by other rules. If other rules are needed, we must discuss, and -- with the benefit of professional advice -- embed those rules in the by-laws.
What this all means is when a person is appointed in a personal capacity according to the by-laws, then they continue to serve, irrespective of by whom they are employed.
I think we agree on this vehemently.
Greetings Peter.
From my reading of this thread, it appears the discussion is coming down to the "the employer controls" versus the "employer appoints" model.
To date, the ccNSO Community has subscribed to the latter model; if we had not, Leslie would have been sacked from the ccNSO Council upon her departure from Nominet. Mike would never have become a ccNSO representative to the ICANN Board. And we would have had to take Chris' head several weeks ago,upon his departure from AuDA. If the ccNSO had adhered to the "employer controls" model, this Community would have been denied the service of a wealth of talent that has served us well in the past, and which (in the case of Mike and Chris), continues to serve us well. The talent of an appointee does not disappear with a change of employer; this concept was recognized long ago with standards setting organisations; the appointee may come from their employer, but the appointment does not vanish with a change of employer; the appointment endures for the length of the term. I firmly believe that we should continue going forward with what we as the ccNSO Community have adhered to in the past, particularly with respect to the ccNSO appointments to the CSC. Our overreaching goal with these appointments will be to get the most qualified people we can find into this critical oversight role --if they shift employers during the course of their tenure, so be it. A shift in their employment does not suddenly deminish their ability to carry out their duties with respect to their responsibilities to the ccNSO Community regarding their oversight responsibilities as part of the CSC. Even if they leave the "Industry", I have no doubt that they will continue to represent the best interests of the Community that they have newly left for the duration of their term. I cite the continued service of Lise Fuhr as a concrete example. Best Regards, /Stephen -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Peter Van Roste Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 3:55 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community Hi Nigel, I get your point about ICANN Board members and ccNSO councillors although I personally believe it is a different issue. I don't get your point about the gNSO. However, I do believe it is up to the ccNSO to decide what it expects from its reps on the CSC. We all worked hard to get us to a point where as customers, we have a tool to monitor performance of the essential IANA function. Remember that the CSC is the starting point of quite a few escalation mechanisms. Why would we jeopardize this big step forward by shying away from holding our reps to the highest standard? I find it slightly bizarre that this is even an issue. With reference to your point on the Bylaws: I don't know them by heart, but I can't remember reading that the Bylaws specify who the ccNSO should appoint to the CSC, let alone put in place modalities on how this should happen. I think it is entirely up to the ccNSO to ask for this commitment and I am disappointed that the call for candidates went out without a reference to this issue. I would strongly advice the Council (or the sub-committee that will decide on it) to ask shortlisted candidates to make this commitment before making the final decision. Regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 07 June 2016 11:43 To: Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community If the GNSO is doing the same, and it's in the by-laws, then obviously so. But if not, our approach should be the same as the GNSO. Or are you arguing that ccNSO representatives need to be more tied to 'customers' than gNSO representatives? Either way, it brings back to the fore the discussion than ccNSO Council Members and ccNSO Board members somehow "should" be "ccTLDs". As I've said, I can't find it in myself to get worked up about it, so I do not personally support this idea. I think the status quo (personal capacity) is entirely perfectly acceptable (if not necessarily how I'd have designed it). So you and I are in agreement here. However I know many people in the ccNSO do disagree with this, and this is a discussion we (Council and the ccNSO) need to have to avoid the kind of corridor mutterings we've had in the past (e.g. regarding Lesley's membership of Council) continuing. On 07/06/16 08:22, Mike Silber wrote:
Good to hear Nigel
However, as the CSC is outside of the ccNSO structures – I think it is entirely appropriate to deviate from the norm in the case of the CSC and require the representatives to that committee to be employees of active IANA “customers”
Regards
Mike
On 07/06/2016, 00:33, "Nigel Roberts" <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Mike
Thanks for the input. It is much appreciated.
As a representative from the ccNSO you have to be aware that there is a significant understanding from many participants that in order to be 'a member of the ccNSO' one has to be employed by a ccTLD.
Now, you and I both know that this is incorrect. A person is never a member of the ccNSO -- it is an organisation.
But nonetheless this perception persists.
It was voiced to me from several directions in respect of Lesley Cowley's continued membership of Council following her resignation from .UK. And I have heard it in other contexts. more recently, too.
I think that appointments that are governed by the by-laws have to be fulfilled in accordance with the ICANN by-laws, and not by other rules. If other rules are needed, we must discuss, and -- with the benefit of professional advice -- embed those rules in the by-laws.
What this all means is when a person is appointed in a personal capacity according to the by-laws, then they continue to serve, irrespective of by whom they are employed.
I think we agree on this vehemently.
Hi Stephen, " A shift in their employment does not suddenly deminish their ability to carry out their duties with respect to their responsibilities to the ccNSO Community regarding their oversight responsibilities as part of the CSC. " This is what I disagree with as it very easily could diminish that ability. - If the person starts working for IANA it would definitely undermine his/her ability to carry out the job. - If the person has a new employer who doesn't want their new employee to spend time on the CSC - and the important feedback to the ccNSO community - this would undermine that ability as well. - If the new employer has a different interest in the CSC than the ccNSO community it might lead to a conflict. I am not suggesting - and never did - that we should "take their head". I am suggesting they should offer their resignation to the ccNSO Council which can then decide to accept it or not. Regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Deerhake [mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as] Sent: 08 June 2016 05:05 To: Peter Van Roste <peter@centr.org>; Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community Greetings Peter.
From my reading of this thread, it appears the discussion is coming down to the "the employer controls" versus the "employer appoints" model.
To date, the ccNSO Community has subscribed to the latter model; if we had not, Leslie would have been sacked from the ccNSO Council upon her departure from Nominet. Mike would never have become a ccNSO representative to the ICANN Board. And we would have had to take Chris' head several weeks ago,upon his departure from AuDA. If the ccNSO had adhered to the "employer controls" model, this Community would have been denied the service of a wealth of talent that has served us well in the past, and which (in the case of Mike and Chris), continues to serve us well. The talent of an appointee does not disappear with a change of employer; this concept was recognized long ago with standards setting organisations; the appointee may come from their employer, but the appointment does not vanish with a change of employer; the appointment endures for the length of the term. I firmly believe that we should continue going forward with what we as the ccNSO Community have adhered to in the past, particularly with respect to the ccNSO appointments to the CSC. Our overreaching goal with these appointments will be to get the most qualified people we can find into this critical oversight role --if they shift employers during the course of their tenure, so be it. A shift in their employment does not suddenly deminish their ability to carry out their duties with respect to their responsibilities to the ccNSO Community regarding their oversight responsibilities as part of the CSC. Even if they leave the "Industry", I have no doubt that they will continue to represent the best interests of the Community that they have newly left for the duration of their term. I cite the continued service of Lise Fuhr as a concrete example. Best Regards, /Stephen -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Peter Van Roste Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 3:55 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community Hi Nigel, I get your point about ICANN Board members and ccNSO councillors although I personally believe it is a different issue. I don't get your point about the gNSO. However, I do believe it is up to the ccNSO to decide what it expects from its reps on the CSC. We all worked hard to get us to a point where as customers, we have a tool to monitor performance of the essential IANA function. Remember that the CSC is the starting point of quite a few escalation mechanisms. Why would we jeopardize this big step forward by shying away from holding our reps to the highest standard? I find it slightly bizarre that this is even an issue. With reference to your point on the Bylaws: I don't know them by heart, but I can't remember reading that the Bylaws specify who the ccNSO should appoint to the CSC, let alone put in place modalities on how this should happen. I think it is entirely up to the ccNSO to ask for this commitment and I am disappointed that the call for candidates went out without a reference to this issue. I would strongly advice the Council (or the sub-committee that will decide on it) to ask shortlisted candidates to make this commitment before making the final decision. Regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 07 June 2016 11:43 To: Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community If the GNSO is doing the same, and it's in the by-laws, then obviously so. But if not, our approach should be the same as the GNSO. Or are you arguing that ccNSO representatives need to be more tied to 'customers' than gNSO representatives? Either way, it brings back to the fore the discussion than ccNSO Council Members and ccNSO Board members somehow "should" be "ccTLDs". As I've said, I can't find it in myself to get worked up about it, so I do not personally support this idea. I think the status quo (personal capacity) is entirely perfectly acceptable (if not necessarily how I'd have designed it). So you and I are in agreement here. However I know many people in the ccNSO do disagree with this, and this is a discussion we (Council and the ccNSO) need to have to avoid the kind of corridor mutterings we've had in the past (e.g. regarding Lesley's membership of Council) continuing. On 07/06/16 08:22, Mike Silber wrote:
Good to hear Nigel
However, as the CSC is outside of the ccNSO structures – I think it is entirely appropriate to deviate from the norm in the case of the CSC and require the representatives to that committee to be employees of active IANA “customers”
Regards
Mike
On 07/06/2016, 00:33, "Nigel Roberts" <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Mike
Thanks for the input. It is much appreciated.
As a representative from the ccNSO you have to be aware that there is a significant understanding from many participants that in order to be 'a member of the ccNSO' one has to be employed by a ccTLD.
Now, you and I both know that this is incorrect. A person is never a member of the ccNSO -- it is an organisation.
But nonetheless this perception persists.
It was voiced to me from several directions in respect of Lesley Cowley's continued membership of Council following her resignation from .UK. And I have heard it in other contexts. more recently, too.
I think that appointments that are governed by the by-laws have to be fulfilled in accordance with the ICANN by-laws, and not by other rules. If other rules are needed, we must discuss, and -- with the benefit of professional advice -- embed those rules in the by-laws.
What this all means is when a person is appointed in a personal capacity according to the by-laws, then they continue to serve, irrespective of by whom they are employed.
I think we agree on this vehemently.
Dear participants of this interesting discussion, Thank you very much for sharing your views! I think that both sides have their strong and sometimes not so strong arguments but I sense that you do not hear each other. I think you miss the point that both sides of the discussion argue with a common goal in mind: 1) we need the best people to serve the interests of the ccTLD community and as long as they do that we appreciate their service and committment and thank them for that 2) if, however, we feel that our members on the CSC do not meet expectations of the ccTLD community (any more) we need a leverage to remove them. As I noted a couple of days ago: the current version of the guideline grants the ccNSO Council the right to remove a member at any time whether they offer their resignation or not. We can discuss if this mechanism is sufficient during our call next week. I am working on the finalising the guideline and will send it to you within an hour! Please be patient! Kind regards, ]{atrina -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Peter Van Roste Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:56 AM To: sdeerhake@nic.as; Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community Hi Stephen, " A shift in their employment does not suddenly deminish their ability to carry out their duties with respect to their responsibilities to the ccNSO Community regarding their oversight responsibilities as part of the CSC. " This is what I disagree with as it very easily could diminish that ability. - If the person starts working for IANA it would definitely undermine his/her ability to carry out the job. - If the person has a new employer who doesn't want their new employee to spend time on the CSC - and the important feedback to the ccNSO community - this would undermine that ability as well. - If the new employer has a different interest in the CSC than the ccNSO community it might lead to a conflict. I am not suggesting - and never did - that we should "take their head". I am suggesting they should offer their resignation to the ccNSO Council which can then decide to accept it or not. Regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Deerhake [mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as] Sent: 08 June 2016 05:05 To: Peter Van Roste <peter@centr.org>; Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community Greetings Peter.
From my reading of this thread, it appears the discussion is coming down to the "the employer controls" versus the "employer appoints" model.
To date, the ccNSO Community has subscribed to the latter model; if we had not, Leslie would have been sacked from the ccNSO Council upon her departure from Nominet. Mike would never have become a ccNSO representative to the ICANN Board. And we would have had to take Chris' head several weeks ago,upon his departure from AuDA. If the ccNSO had adhered to the "employer controls" model, this Community would have been denied the service of a wealth of talent that has served us well in the past, and which (in the case of Mike and Chris), continues to serve us well. The talent of an appointee does not disappear with a change of employer; this concept was recognized long ago with standards setting organisations; the appointee may come from their employer, but the appointment does not vanish with a change of employer; the appointment endures for the length of the term. I firmly believe that we should continue going forward with what we as the ccNSO Community have adhered to in the past, particularly with respect to the ccNSO appointments to the CSC. Our overreaching goal with these appointments will be to get the most qualified people we can find into this critical oversight role --if they shift employers during the course of their tenure, so be it. A shift in their employment does not suddenly deminish their ability to carry out their duties with respect to their responsibilities to the ccNSO Community regarding their oversight responsibilities as part of the CSC. Even if they leave the "Industry", I have no doubt that they will continue to represent the best interests of the Community that they have newly left for the duration of their term. I cite the continued service of Lise Fuhr as a concrete example. Best Regards, /Stephen -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Peter Van Roste Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 3:55 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community Hi Nigel, I get your point about ICANN Board members and ccNSO councillors although I personally believe it is a different issue. I don't get your point about the gNSO. However, I do believe it is up to the ccNSO to decide what it expects from its reps on the CSC. We all worked hard to get us to a point where as customers, we have a tool to monitor performance of the essential IANA function. Remember that the CSC is the starting point of quite a few escalation mechanisms. Why would we jeopardize this big step forward by shying away from holding our reps to the highest standard? I find it slightly bizarre that this is even an issue. With reference to your point on the Bylaws: I don't know them by heart, but I can't remember reading that the Bylaws specify who the ccNSO should appoint to the CSC, let alone put in place modalities on how this should happen. I think it is entirely up to the ccNSO to ask for this commitment and I am disappointed that the call for candidates went out without a reference to this issue. I would strongly advice the Council (or the sub-committee that will decide on it) to ask shortlisted candidates to make this commitment before making the final decision. Regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 07 June 2016 11:43 To: Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Request from ICANN (re CSC) and draft letter to the community If the GNSO is doing the same, and it's in the by-laws, then obviously so. But if not, our approach should be the same as the GNSO. Or are you arguing that ccNSO representatives need to be more tied to 'customers' than gNSO representatives? Either way, it brings back to the fore the discussion than ccNSO Council Members and ccNSO Board members somehow "should" be "ccTLDs". As I've said, I can't find it in myself to get worked up about it, so I do not personally support this idea. I think the status quo (personal capacity) is entirely perfectly acceptable (if not necessarily how I'd have designed it). So you and I are in agreement here. However I know many people in the ccNSO do disagree with this, and this is a discussion we (Council and the ccNSO) need to have to avoid the kind of corridor mutterings we've had in the past (e.g. regarding Lesley's membership of Council) continuing. On 07/06/16 08:22, Mike Silber wrote:
Good to hear Nigel
However, as the CSC is outside of the ccNSO structures – I think it is entirely appropriate to deviate from the norm in the case of the CSC and require the representatives to that committee to be employees of active IANA “customers”
Regards
Mike
On 07/06/2016, 00:33, "Nigel Roberts" <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Mike
Thanks for the input. It is much appreciated.
As a representative from the ccNSO you have to be aware that there is a significant understanding from many participants that in order to be 'a member of the ccNSO' one has to be employed by a ccTLD.
Now, you and I both know that this is incorrect. A person is never a member of the ccNSO -- it is an organisation.
But nonetheless this perception persists.
It was voiced to me from several directions in respect of Lesley Cowley's continued membership of Council following her resignation from .UK. And I have heard it in other contexts. more recently, too.
I think that appointments that are governed by the by-laws have to be fulfilled in accordance with the ICANN by-laws, and not by other rules. If other rules are needed, we must discuss, and -- with the benefit of professional advice -- embed those rules in the by-laws.
What this all means is when a person is appointed in a personal capacity according to the by-laws, then they continue to serve, irrespective of by whom they are employed.
I think we agree on this vehemently.
participants (5)
-
Katrina Sataki -
Mike Silber -
Nigel Roberts -
Peter Van Roste -
Stephen Deerhake