Letter to the Board re IFRT
Dear Colleagues, As you remember, the Board asked us to put in writing our struggle with the selection of ccTLD representatives to the IFRT. Please find a draft below. Please let me know by 30 November if you have any suggestions on how to improve the text. Thank you! ]{atrina -- During the bilateral meeting between the ICANN Board and ccNSO on Wednesday, 24 October, 2018, we briefly touched upon the issue the ccNSO is facing in selecting a non-ccNSO member on the IANA Function Review team (IFRT). As agreed, the ccNSO Council is sending you a more detailed explanation of the issue. According to section 18.7 (a) and (b) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council is required to appoint 3 members on the IFRT: (a) Two representatives from ccNSO member ccTLD registry operator representatives; (b) at least one (1) non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO. This needs to be read in the context of section 18.8 (c ): the ccNSO and Registries Stakeholder Group shall not appoint multiple members who are citizens of countries from the same ICANN Geographic Region. On 20 July, initial information about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed. Following that, * from 10 August to 24 August, the call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * from 27 August to 10 September, second call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * as suggested in the Bylaws, the ccNSO Council reached out to the Regional ccTLD organisations who informed their members on their respective email lists and encouraged their members to apply; * An announcements was published on the ccNSO Website; * Several reminders we sent to the email lists - 14 August, 21 August, 7 September. Unfortunately, despite the efforts listed above, the ccNSO was not able to secure a volunteer from a ccTLD registry operator that is not a member of the ccNSO. To ensure that the ccTLD community at large is properly represented, the ccNSO Council decided to appoint three members to the IFRT. The third person, also a representative of a member of the ccNSO, is appointed on an interim basis. This person will step down and be replaced on the IFRT if a candidate from a non-ccNSO ccTLD manager with the required skills and experience, as defined in the original call for volunteers, steps forward. It must be noted that if this person is from an ICANN Geographic Region of one of the two other selected and most preferred representatives from the ccNSO membership, it will have a knock-on effect: to meet the hard-coded diversity criteria, the representative will have to step down. Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs as members to the IFRT. Our advice would be to change / interpret the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean: "Three representatives appointed by the ccNSO from ccTLD registry operator representatives; to the extent possible and reasonable, the ccNSO should strive to appoint at least one non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO." --
HI Katrina, Thanks for sharing it. Please see the text with my edits below. Best, Giovanni During the bilateral meeting between the ICANN Board and ccNSO on Wednesday, 24 October, 2018, we briefly touched upon discussed the issue the ccNSO is facing in selecting a non-ccNSO member on for the IANA Function Review team (IFRT). As agreed, the ccNSO Council is sending you a more happy to share its considerations on this matter detailed explanation of the issue. According to section 18.7 (a) and (b) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council is required to appoint 3 members on the IFRT: (a) Two representatives from ccNSO member ccTLD registry operator representatives; (b) at least one (1) non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO. This needs to be read in the context of section 18.8 (c ): the ccNSO and Registries Stakeholder Group shall not appoint multiple members who are citizens of countries from the same ICANN Geographic Region. On 20 July 2018, initial information a communication about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all ccNSO email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed. Following that Subsequently: * From 10 August to 24 August 2018, the call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * From 27 August to 10 September 2018, the second call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * As suggested in the Bylaws, the ccNSO Council reached out to the regional ccTLD organisations who that informed their membership on their respective email lists and encouraged their members those who were interested to apply; * An announcements was published on the ccNSO Website (WHEN ?); * Several reminders we We sent reminders to the email lists on 14 August, 21 August and 7 September 2018. Unfortunately, despite the above efforts listed above, the ccNSO was not able to secure find a volunteer from a ccTLD registry operator that is not a member of the ccNSO. To ensure that the ccTLD community at large is properly represented, the ccNSO Council decided to appoint three members to the IFRT. The third person, also a representative of a member of the ccNSO, is appointed on an interim basis. This person will step down and be replaced on the IFRT if a candidate from a non-ccNSO ccTLD manager with the required skills and experience, as defined in the original call for volunteers, steps forward. It must be noted that if this person is from an ICANN Geographic Region of one of the two other selected and most preferred representatives from the ccNSO membership, it will have a knock-on effect: to meet the hard-coded diversity criteria, the representative will have to step down. Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs-non ccNSO members as members to the IFRT. Therefore, our advice would be to change / interpret amend the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean as follows: "Three representatives appointed by the ccNSO from ccTLD registry operator representatives; to the extent possible and reasonable, the ccNSO should strive to appoint at least one non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO." [cid:image002.jpg@01D4828B.69A31EF0]<http://www.eurid.eu/>Giovanni Seppia / External Relations Manager Phone: +32 (0)2 401 27 50 Mobile: +39 335 8141733 Website: www.eurid.eu<http://www.eurid.eu> Address: Woluwelaan 150 - 1831 Diegem - Belgium [cid:image007.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30]<https://twitter.com/EUregistry> [cid:image008.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/eurid/> [cid:image009.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry> From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: 22 November 2018 17:23 To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT Dear Colleagues, As you remember, the Board asked us to put in writing our struggle with the selection of ccTLD representatives to the IFRT. Please find a draft below. Please let me know by 30 November if you have any suggestions on how to improve the text. Thank you! ]{atrina -- During the bilateral meeting between the ICANN Board and ccNSO on Wednesday, 24 October, 2018, we briefly touched upon the issue the ccNSO is facing in selecting a non-ccNSO member on the IANA Function Review team (IFRT). As agreed, the ccNSO Council is sending you a more detailed explanation of the issue. According to section 18.7 (a) and (b) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council is required to appoint 3 members on the IFRT: (a) Two representatives from ccNSO member ccTLD registry operator representatives; (b) at least one (1) non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO. This needs to be read in the context of section 18.8 (c ): the ccNSO and Registries Stakeholder Group shall not appoint multiple members who are citizens of countries from the same ICANN Geographic Region. On 20 July, initial information about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed. Following that, * from 10 August to 24 August, the call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * from 27 August to 10 September, second call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * as suggested in the Bylaws, the ccNSO Council reached out to the Regional ccTLD organisations who informed their members on their respective email lists and encouraged their members to apply; * An announcements was published on the ccNSO Website; * Several reminders we sent to the email lists - 14 August, 21 August, 7 September. Unfortunately, despite the efforts listed above, the ccNSO was not able to secure a volunteer from a ccTLD registry operator that is not a member of the ccNSO. To ensure that the ccTLD community at large is properly represented, the ccNSO Council decided to appoint three members to the IFRT. The third person, also a representative of a member of the ccNSO, is appointed on an interim basis. This person will step down and be replaced on the IFRT if a candidate from a non-ccNSO ccTLD manager with the required skills and experience, as defined in the original call for volunteers, steps forward. It must be noted that if this person is from an ICANN Geographic Region of one of the two other selected and most preferred representatives from the ccNSO membership, it will have a knock-on effect: to meet the hard-coded diversity criteria, the representative will have to step down. Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs as members to the IFRT. Our advice would be to change / interpret the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean: "Three representatives appointed by the ccNSO from ccTLD registry operator representatives; to the extent possible and reasonable, the ccNSO should strive to appoint at least one non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO." -- Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer https://eurid.eu/en/other-infomation/privacy-policy
Hi Giovanni, Thank you for your suggestions. A few comments back:
On 20 July 2018, initial information a communication about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all ccNSO email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed.
Technically, the ccTLD World list is not a ccNSO mailing list. Calling it a ccNSO email list is not correct. Any other suggestions how to say that?
Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs-non ccNSO members as members to the IFRT.
No, we won't be able to select the most qualified representatives from ccTLDs, not just non ccNSO members. The idea is that if we have, for example, one qualified ccNSO member and one non-qualified non member, we have to select the non-member. That inevitably leads to the situation when we cannot have the best people. We should be able to select the most qualified people, whether they are members or non-members should not play any role. Therefore, I would like to keep it the way it was, i.e. "representatives of ccTLDs"
Therefore, our advice would be to change / interpret amend the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean as follows:
We won't be able to amend the Bylaws so quickly. The Board needs to approve the IFRT. I think we should ask them to interpret the Bylaws in a way that would allow us to appoint three members, instead of two. Any other suggestions for this wording? Kind regards, ]{atrina From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: 22 November 2018 17:23 To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> > Subject: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT Dear Colleagues, As you remember, the Board asked us to put in writing our struggle with the selection of ccTLD representatives to the IFRT. Please find a draft below. Please let me know by 30 November if you have any suggestions on how to improve the text. Thank you! ]{atrina -- During the bilateral meeting between the ICANN Board and ccNSO on Wednesday, 24 October, 2018, we briefly touched upon the issue the ccNSO is facing in selecting a non-ccNSO member on the IANA Function Review team (IFRT). As agreed, the ccNSO Council is sending you a more detailed explanation of the issue. According to section 18.7 (a) and (b) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council is required to appoint 3 members on the IFRT: (a) Two representatives from ccNSO member ccTLD registry operator representatives; (b) at least one (1) non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO. This needs to be read in the context of section 18.8 (c ): the ccNSO and Registries Stakeholder Group shall not appoint multiple members who are citizens of countries from the same ICANN Geographic Region. On 20 July, initial information about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed. Following that, * from 10 August to 24 August, the call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * from 27 August to 10 September, second call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * as suggested in the Bylaws, the ccNSO Council reached out to the Regional ccTLD organisations who informed their members on their respective email lists and encouraged their members to apply; * An announcements was published on the ccNSO Website; * Several reminders we sent to the email lists - 14 August, 21 August, 7 September. Unfortunately, despite the efforts listed above, the ccNSO was not able to secure a volunteer from a ccTLD registry operator that is not a member of the ccNSO. To ensure that the ccTLD community at large is properly represented, the ccNSO Council decided to appoint three members to the IFRT. The third person, also a representative of a member of the ccNSO, is appointed on an interim basis. This person will step down and be replaced on the IFRT if a candidate from a non-ccNSO ccTLD manager with the required skills and experience, as defined in the original call for volunteers, steps forward. It must be noted that if this person is from an ICANN Geographic Region of one of the two other selected and most preferred representatives from the ccNSO membership, it will have a knock-on effect: to meet the hard-coded diversity criteria, the representative will have to step down. Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs as members to the IFRT. Our advice would be to change / interpret the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean: "Three representatives appointed by the ccNSO from ccTLD registry operator representatives; to the extent possible and reasonable, the ccNSO should strive to appoint at least one non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO." -- Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy <https://eurid.eu/en/other-infomation/privacy-policy> . While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. Other languages: English <http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer> Estonian <http://www.eurid.eu/et/legal-disclaimer> Italian <http://www.eurid.eu/it/legal-disclaimer> Maltese <http://www.eurid.eu/mt/legal-disclaimer> Romanian <http://www.eurid.eu/ro/legal-disclaimer> Swedish <http://www.eurid.eu/sv/legal-disclaimer> Czech <http://www.eurid.eu/cs/legal-disclaimer> Spanish <http://www.eurid.eu/es/legal-disclaimer> Latvian <http://www.eurid.eu/lv/legal-disclaimer> Dutch <http://www.eurid.eu/nl/legal-disclaimer> Slovak <http://www.eurid.eu/sk/legal-disclaimer> Greek <http://www.eurid.eu/el/legal-disclaimer> Danish <http://www.eurid.eu/da/legal-disclaimer> French <http://www.eurid.eu/fr/legal-disclaimer> Lithuanian <http://www.eurid.eu/lt/legal-disclaimer> Polish <http://www.eurid.eu/pl/legal-disclaimer> Slovenian <http://www.eurid.eu/sl/legal-disclaimer> Bulgarian <http://www.eurid.eu/bg/legal-disclaimer> German <http://www.eurid.eu/de/legal-disclaimer> Gaelic <http://www.eurid.eu/ga/legal-disclaimer> Hungarian <http://www.eurid.eu/hu/legal-disclaimer> Portuguese <http://www.eurid.eu/pt/legal-disclaimer> Finnish <http://www.eurid.eu/fi/legal-disclaimer> Croatian <http://www.eurid.eu/hr/legal-disclaimer> --
Hi Katrina, - First sentence "On 20 July 2018, a communication about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all ccNSO email lists and the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed." - Second point, fine with leaving it as it was. - Third point is quite tricky as I remember there is a procedure under Californian law to "interpret" the Bylaw. Bart may investigate. A suggestion could be to tweak the wording as follows "Therefore, our advice would be to agree on a common understanding of the section 18.7 (a) and (b) as follows: ". That will avoid the word "interpret". Best, Giovanni [cid:image002.jpg@01D48291.93243740]<http://www.eurid.eu/>Giovanni Seppia / External Relations Manager Phone: +32 (0)2 401 27 50 Mobile: +39 335 8141733 Website: www.eurid.eu<http://www.eurid.eu> Address: Woluwelaan 150 - 1831 Diegem - Belgium [cid:image007.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30]<https://twitter.com/EUregistry> [cid:image008.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/eurid/> [cid:image009.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry> From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Sent: 22 November 2018 18:24 To: Giovanni Seppia <Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu>; 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT Hi Giovanni, Thank you for your suggestions. A few comments back:
On 20 July 2018, initial information a communication about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all ccNSO email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed.
Technically, the ccTLD World list is not a ccNSO mailing list. Calling it a ccNSO email list is not correct. Any other suggestions how to say that?
Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs-non ccNSO members as members to the IFRT.
No, we won't be able to select the most qualified representatives from ccTLDs, not just non ccNSO members. The idea is that if we have, for example, one qualified ccNSO member and one non-qualified non member, we have to select the non-member. That inevitably leads to the situation when we cannot have the best people. We should be able to select the most qualified people, whether they are members or non-members should not play any role. Therefore, I would like to keep it the way it was, i.e. "representatives of ccTLDs"
Therefore, our advice would be to change / interpret amend the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean as follows:
We won't be able to amend the Bylaws so quickly. The Board needs to approve the IFRT. I think we should ask them to interpret the Bylaws in a way that would allow us to appoint three members, instead of two. Any other suggestions for this wording? Kind regards, ]{atrina From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: 22 November 2018 17:23 To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT Dear Colleagues, As you remember, the Board asked us to put in writing our struggle with the selection of ccTLD representatives to the IFRT. Please find a draft below. Please let me know by 30 November if you have any suggestions on how to improve the text. Thank you! ]{atrina -- During the bilateral meeting between the ICANN Board and ccNSO on Wednesday, 24 October, 2018, we briefly touched upon the issue the ccNSO is facing in selecting a non-ccNSO member on the IANA Function Review team (IFRT). As agreed, the ccNSO Council is sending you a more detailed explanation of the issue. According to section 18.7 (a) and (b) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council is required to appoint 3 members on the IFRT: (a) Two representatives from ccNSO member ccTLD registry operator representatives; (b) at least one (1) non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO. This needs to be read in the context of section 18.8 (c ): the ccNSO and Registries Stakeholder Group shall not appoint multiple members who are citizens of countries from the same ICANN Geographic Region. On 20 July, initial information about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed. Following that, * from 10 August to 24 August, the call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * from 27 August to 10 September, second call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * as suggested in the Bylaws, the ccNSO Council reached out to the Regional ccTLD organisations who informed their members on their respective email lists and encouraged their members to apply; * An announcements was published on the ccNSO Website; * Several reminders we sent to the email lists - 14 August, 21 August, 7 September. Unfortunately, despite the efforts listed above, the ccNSO was not able to secure a volunteer from a ccTLD registry operator that is not a member of the ccNSO. To ensure that the ccTLD community at large is properly represented, the ccNSO Council decided to appoint three members to the IFRT. The third person, also a representative of a member of the ccNSO, is appointed on an interim basis. This person will step down and be replaced on the IFRT if a candidate from a non-ccNSO ccTLD manager with the required skills and experience, as defined in the original call for volunteers, steps forward. It must be noted that if this person is from an ICANN Geographic Region of one of the two other selected and most preferred representatives from the ccNSO membership, it will have a knock-on effect: to meet the hard-coded diversity criteria, the representative will have to step down. Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs as members to the IFRT. Our advice would be to change / interpret the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean: "Three representatives appointed by the ccNSO from ccTLD registry operator representatives; to the extent possible and reasonable, the ccNSO should strive to appoint at least one non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO." -- Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy<https://eurid.eu/en/other-infomation/privacy-policy>. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. Other languages: English<http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer> Estonian<http://www.eurid.eu/et/legal-disclaimer> Italian<http://www.eurid.eu/it/legal-disclaimer> Maltese<http://www.eurid.eu/mt/legal-disclaimer> Romanian<http://www.eurid.eu/ro/legal-disclaimer> Swedish<http://www.eurid.eu/sv/legal-disclaimer> Czech<http://www.eurid.eu/cs/legal-disclaimer> Spanish<http://www.eurid.eu/es/legal-disclaimer> Latvian<http://www.eurid.eu/lv/legal-disclaimer> Dutch<http://www.eurid.eu/nl/legal-disclaimer> Slovak<http://www.eurid.eu/sk/legal-disclaimer> Greek<http://www.eurid.eu/el/legal-disclaimer> Danish<http://www.eurid.eu/da/legal-disclaimer> French<http://www.eurid.eu/fr/legal-disclaimer> Lithuanian<http://www.eurid.eu/lt/legal-disclaimer> Polish<http://www.eurid.eu/pl/legal-disclaimer> Slovenian<http://www.eurid.eu/sl/legal-disclaimer> Bulgarian<http://www.eurid.eu/bg/legal-disclaimer> German<http://www.eurid.eu/de/legal-disclaimer> Gaelic<http://www.eurid.eu/ga/legal-disclaimer> Hungarian<http://www.eurid.eu/hu/legal-disclaimer> Portuguese<http://www.eurid.eu/pt/legal-disclaimer> Finnish<http://www.eurid.eu/fi/legal-disclaimer> Croatian<http://www.eurid.eu/hr/legal-disclaimer> Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer https://eurid.eu/en/other-infomation/privacy-policy
Hi Giovanni, Thanks again:
Third point is quite tricky as I remember there is a procedure under Californian law to “interpret” the Bylaw. Bart may investigate. A suggestion could be to tweak the wording as follows “Therefore, our advice would be to agree on a common understanding of the section 18.7 (a) and (b) as follows: ”. That will avoid the word “interpret”.
This looks like something a wife would tell to her husband: “I advise that we agree on a common understanding AS FOLLOWS… “ (should add “OR ELSE…”) I mean, I absolutely love it, really, ☺ but maybe we can find a better wording for this particular letter? Something with “propose”, perhaps? For example, “Therefore, we propose to agree on a common understanding of the section 18.7 (a) and (b), for example, as follows…” Any other suggestions? Thank you! ]{atrina From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Sent: 22 November 2018 18:24 To: Giovanni Seppia <Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu>; 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT Hi Giovanni, Thank you for your suggestions. A few comments back:
On 20 July 2018, initial information a communication about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all ccNSO email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed.
Technically, the ccTLD World list is not a ccNSO mailing list. Calling it a ccNSO email list is not correct. Any other suggestions how to say that?
Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs-non ccNSO members as members to the IFRT.
No, we won’t be able to select the most qualified representatives from ccTLDs, not just non ccNSO members. The idea is that if we have, for example, one qualified ccNSO member and one non-qualified non member, we have to select the non-member. That inevitably leads to the situation when we cannot have the best people. We should be able to select the most qualified people, whether they are members or non-members should not play any role. Therefore, I would like to keep it the way it was, i.e. “representatives of ccTLDs”
Therefore, our advice would be to change / interpret amend the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean as follows:
We won’t be able to amend the Bylaws so quickly. The Board needs to approve the IFRT. I think we should ask them to interpret the Bylaws in a way that would allow us to appoint three members, instead of two. Any other suggestions for this wording? Kind regards, ]{atrina From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: 22 November 2018 17:23 To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT Dear Colleagues, As you remember, the Board asked us to put in writing our struggle with the selection of ccTLD representatives to the IFRT. Please find a draft below. Please let me know by 30 November if you have any suggestions on how to improve the text. Thank you! ]{atrina -- During the bilateral meeting between the ICANN Board and ccNSO on Wednesday, 24 October, 2018, we briefly touched upon the issue the ccNSO is facing in selecting a non-ccNSO member on the IANA Function Review team (IFRT). As agreed, the ccNSO Council is sending you a more detailed explanation of the issue. According to section 18.7 (a) and (b) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council is required to appoint 3 members on the IFRT: (a) Two representatives from ccNSO member ccTLD registry operator representatives; (b) at least one (1) non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO. This needs to be read in the context of section 18.8 (c ): the ccNSO and Registries Stakeholder Group shall not appoint multiple members who are citizens of countries from the same ICANN Geographic Region. On 20 July, initial information about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed. Following that, from 10 August to 24 August, the call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; from 27 August to 10 September, second call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; as suggested in the Bylaws, the ccNSO Council reached out to the Regional ccTLD organisations who informed their members on their respective email lists and encouraged their members to apply; An announcements was published on the ccNSO Website; Several reminders we sent to the email lists – 14 August, 21 August, 7 September. Unfortunately, despite the efforts listed above, the ccNSO was not able to secure a volunteer from a ccTLD registry operator that is not a member of the ccNSO. To ensure that the ccTLD community at large is properly represented, the ccNSO Council decided to appoint three members to the IFRT. The third person, also a representative of a member of the ccNSO, is appointed on an interim basis. This person will step down and be replaced on the IFRT if a candidate from a non-ccNSO ccTLD manager with the required skills and experience, as defined in the original call for volunteers, steps forward. It must be noted that if this person is from an ICANN Geographic Region of one of the two other selected and most preferred representatives from the ccNSO membership, it will have a knock-on effect: to meet the hard-coded diversity criteria, the representative will have to step down. Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs as members to the IFRT. Our advice would be to change / interpret the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean: “Three representatives appointed by the ccNSO from ccTLD registry operator representatives; to the extent possible and reasonable, the ccNSO should strive to appoint at least one non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO.” -- Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. Other languages: EnglishEstonianItalianMalteseRomanianSwedish CzechSpanishLatvianDutchSlovakGreek DanishFrenchLithuanianPolishSlovenianBulgarian GermanGaelicHungarianPortugueseFinnishCroatian
Hello Katrina How about calling the world list as Global ccTLD operators List or General ccTLD Operators List. Thanks. Ajay On 22 November 2018 22:54:15 GMT+05:30, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Hi Giovanni,
Thank you for your suggestions.
A few comments back:
On 20 July 2018, initial information a communication about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all ccNSO email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed.
Technically, the ccTLD World list is not a ccNSO mailing list. Calling it a ccNSO email list is not correct. Any other suggestions how to say that?
Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs-non ccNSO members as members to the IFRT.
No, we won't be able to select the most qualified representatives from ccTLDs, not just non ccNSO members. The idea is that if we have, for example, one qualified ccNSO member and one non-qualified non member, we have to select the non-member. That inevitably leads to the situation when we cannot have the best people. We should be able to select the most qualified people, whether they are members or non-members should not play any role.
Therefore, I would like to keep it the way it was, i.e. "representatives of ccTLDs"
Therefore, our advice would be to change / interpret amend the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean as follows:
We won't be able to amend the Bylaws so quickly. The Board needs to approve the IFRT. I think we should ask them to interpret the Bylaws in a way that would allow us to appoint three members, instead of two. Any other suggestions for this wording?
Kind regards,
]{atrina
From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: 22 November 2018 17:23 To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> > Subject: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT
Dear Colleagues,
As you remember, the Board asked us to put in writing our struggle with the selection of ccTLD representatives to the IFRT. Please find a draft below.
Please let me know by 30 November if you have any suggestions on how to improve the text.
Thank you!
]{atrina
--
During the bilateral meeting between the ICANN Board and ccNSO on Wednesday, 24 October, 2018, we briefly touched upon the issue the ccNSO is facing in selecting a non-ccNSO member on the IANA Function Review team (IFRT). As agreed, the ccNSO Council is sending you a more detailed explanation of the issue.
According to section 18.7 (a) and (b) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council is required to appoint 3 members on the IFRT:
(a) Two representatives from ccNSO member ccTLD registry operator representatives;
(b) at least one (1) non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO.
This needs to be read in the context of section 18.8 (c ): the ccNSO and Registries Stakeholder Group shall not appoint multiple members who are citizens of countries from the same ICANN Geographic Region.
On 20 July, initial information about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed. Following that,
* from 10 August to 24 August, the call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * from 27 August to 10 September, second call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * as suggested in the Bylaws, the ccNSO Council reached out to the Regional ccTLD organisations who informed their members on their respective email lists and encouraged their members to apply; * An announcements was published on the ccNSO Website; * Several reminders we sent to the email lists - 14 August, 21 August, 7 September.
Unfortunately, despite the efforts listed above, the ccNSO was not able to secure a volunteer from a ccTLD registry operator that is not a member of the ccNSO.
To ensure that the ccTLD community at large is properly represented, the ccNSO Council decided to appoint three members to the IFRT. The third person, also a representative of a member of the ccNSO, is appointed on an interim basis. This person will step down and be replaced on the IFRT if a candidate from a non-ccNSO ccTLD manager with the required skills and experience, as defined in the original call for volunteers, steps forward. It must be noted that if this person is from an ICANN Geographic Region of one of the two other selected and most preferred representatives from the ccNSO membership, it will have a knock-on effect: to meet the hard-coded diversity criteria, the representative will have to step down.
Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs as members to the IFRT.
Our advice would be to change / interpret the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean:
"Three representatives appointed by the ccNSO from ccTLD registry operator representatives; to the extent possible and reasonable, the ccNSO should strive to appoint at least one non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO."
--
Disclaimer:
This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy <https://eurid.eu/en/other-infomation/privacy-policy> . While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses.
Other languages:
English <http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer>
Estonian <http://www.eurid.eu/et/legal-disclaimer>
Italian <http://www.eurid.eu/it/legal-disclaimer>
Maltese <http://www.eurid.eu/mt/legal-disclaimer>
Romanian <http://www.eurid.eu/ro/legal-disclaimer>
Swedish <http://www.eurid.eu/sv/legal-disclaimer>
Czech <http://www.eurid.eu/cs/legal-disclaimer>
Spanish <http://www.eurid.eu/es/legal-disclaimer>
Latvian <http://www.eurid.eu/lv/legal-disclaimer>
Dutch <http://www.eurid.eu/nl/legal-disclaimer>
Slovak <http://www.eurid.eu/sk/legal-disclaimer>
Greek <http://www.eurid.eu/el/legal-disclaimer>
Danish <http://www.eurid.eu/da/legal-disclaimer>
French <http://www.eurid.eu/fr/legal-disclaimer>
Lithuanian <http://www.eurid.eu/lt/legal-disclaimer>
Polish <http://www.eurid.eu/pl/legal-disclaimer>
Slovenian <http://www.eurid.eu/sl/legal-disclaimer>
Bulgarian <http://www.eurid.eu/bg/legal-disclaimer>
German <http://www.eurid.eu/de/legal-disclaimer>
Gaelic <http://www.eurid.eu/ga/legal-disclaimer>
Hungarian <http://www.eurid.eu/hu/legal-disclaimer>
Portuguese <http://www.eurid.eu/pt/legal-disclaimer>
Finnish <http://www.eurid.eu/fi/legal-disclaimer>
Croatian <http://www.eurid.eu/hr/legal-disclaimer>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
-- Sent from my Android device with XGenPlus.
Hi Ajay, Thank you for the suggestion; however, if I’m not mistaken, in all our documents we call it ccTLD world list. The Secretariat will correct me if I’m wrong. Kind regards, ]{atrina From: Ajay Data [mailto:ajay@xgenplus.com] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 4:49 AM To: katrina@nic.lv; Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT Hello Katrina How about calling the world list as Global ccTLD operators List or General ccTLD Operators List. Thanks. Ajay On 22 November 2018 22:54:15 GMT+05:30, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv> > wrote: Hi Giovanni, Thank you for your suggestions. A few comments back:
On 20 July 2018, initial information a communication about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all ccNSO email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed.
Technically, the ccTLD World list is not a ccNSO mailing list. Calling it a ccNSO email list is not correct. Any other suggestions how to say that?
Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs-non ccNSO members as members to the IFRT.
No, we won’t be able to select the most qualified representatives from ccTLDs, not just non ccNSO members. The idea is that if we have, for example, one qualified ccNSO member and one non-qualified non member, we have to select the non-member. That inevitably leads to the situation when we cannot have the best people. We should be able to select the most qualified people, whether they are members or non-members should not play any role. Therefore, I would like to keep it the way it was, i.e. “representatives of ccTLDs”
Therefore, our advice would be to change / interpret amend the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean as follows:
We won’t be able to amend the Bylaws so quickly. The Board needs to approve the IFRT. I think we should ask them to interpret the Bylaws in a way that would allow us to appoint three members, instead of two. Any other suggestions for this wording? Kind regards, ]{atrina From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: 22 November 2018 17:23 To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> > Subject: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT Dear Colleagues, As you remember, the Board asked us to put in writing our struggle with the selection of ccTLD representatives to the IFRT. Please find a draft below. Please let me know by 30 November if you have any suggestions on how to improve the text. Thank you! ]{atrina -- During the bilateral meeting between the ICANN Board and ccNSO on Wednesday, 24 October, 2018, we briefly touched upon the issue the ccNSO is facing in selecting a non-ccNSO member on the IANA Function Review team (IFRT). As agreed, the ccNSO Council is sending you a more detailed explanation of the issue. According to section 18.7 (a) and (b) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council is required to appoint 3 members on the IFRT: (a) Two representatives from ccNSO member ccTLD registry operator representatives; (b) at least one (1) non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO. This needs to be read in the context of section 18.8 (c ): the ccNSO and Registries Stakeholder Group shall not appoint multiple members who are citizens of countries from the same ICANN Geographic Region. On 20 July, initial information about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed. Following that, * from 10 August to 24 August, the call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * from 27 August to 10 September, second call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * as suggested in the Bylaws, the ccNSO Council reached out to the Regional ccTLD organisations who informed their members on their respective email lists and encouraged their members to apply; * An announcements was published on the ccNSO Website; * Several reminders we sent to the email lists – 14 August, 21 August, 7 September. Unfortunately, despite the efforts listed above, the ccNSO was not able to secure a volunteer from a ccTLD registry operator that is not a member of the ccNSO. To ensure that the ccTLD community at large is properly represented, the ccNSO Council decided to appoint three members to the IFRT. The third person, also a representative of a member of the ccNSO, is appointed on an interim basis. This person will step down and be replaced on the IFRT if a candidate from a non-ccNSO ccTLD manager with the required skills and experience, as defined in the original call for volunteers, steps forward. It must be noted that if this person is from an ICANN Geographic Region of one of the two other selected and most preferred representatives from the ccNSO membership, it will have a knock-on effect: to meet the hard-coded diversity criteria, the representative will have to step down. Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs as members to the IFRT. Our advice would be to change / interpret the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean: “Three representatives appointed by the ccNSO from ccTLD registry operator representatives; to the extent possible and reasonable, the ccNSO should strive to appoint at least one non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO.” -- Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy <https://eurid.eu/en/other-infomation/privacy-policy> . While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. Other languages: English <http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer> Estonian <http://www.eurid.eu/et/legal-disclaimer> Italian <http://www.eurid.eu/it/legal-disclaimer> Maltese <http://www.eurid.eu/mt/legal-disclaimer> Romanian <http://www.eurid.eu/ro/legal-disclaimer> Swedish <http://www.eurid.eu/sv/legal-disclaimer> Czech <http://www.eurid.eu/cs/legal-disclaimer> Spanish <http://www.eurid.eu/es/legal-disclaimer> Latvian <http://www.eurid.eu/lv/legal-disclaimer> Dutch <http://www.eurid.eu/nl/legal-disclaimer> Slovak <http://www.eurid.eu/sk/legal-disclaimer> Greek <http://www.eurid.eu/el/legal-disclaimer> Danish <http://www.eurid.eu/da/legal-disclaimer> French <http://www.eurid.eu/fr/legal-disclaimer> Lithuanian <http://www.eurid.eu/lt/legal-disclaimer> Polish <http://www.eurid.eu/pl/legal-disclaimer> Slovenian <http://www.eurid.eu/sl/legal-disclaimer> Bulgarian <http://www.eurid.eu/bg/legal-disclaimer> German <http://www.eurid.eu/de/legal-disclaimer> Gaelic <http://www.eurid.eu/ga/legal-disclaimer> Hungarian <http://www.eurid.eu/hu/legal-disclaimer> Portuguese <http://www.eurid.eu/pt/legal-disclaimer> Finnish <http://www.eurid.eu/fi/legal-disclaimer> Croatian <http://www.eurid.eu/hr/legal-disclaimer> _____ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council -- Sent from my Android device with XGenPlus.
Katrina, all, The email list is called the ccTLD World list: see the procedural documentation pertaining to the use of this email list: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/c... Kind regards, Bart From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Date: Friday, 23 November 2018 at 09:31 To: 'Ajay Data' <ajay@xgenplus.com>, "Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu" <Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT Hi Ajay, Thank you for the suggestion; however, if I’m not mistaken, in all our documents we call it ccTLD world list. The Secretariat will correct me if I’m wrong. Kind regards, ]{atrina From: Ajay Data [mailto:ajay@xgenplus.com] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 4:49 AM To: katrina@nic.lv; Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT Hello Katrina How about calling the world list as Global ccTLD operators List or General ccTLD Operators List. Thanks. Ajay On 22 November 2018 22:54:15 GMT+05:30, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote: Hi Giovanni, Thank you for your suggestions. A few comments back:
On 20 July 2018, initial information a communication about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all ccNSO email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed.
Technically, the ccTLD World list is not a ccNSO mailing list. Calling it a ccNSO email list is not correct. Any other suggestions how to say that?
Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs-non ccNSO members as members to the IFRT.
No, we won’t be able to select the most qualified representatives from ccTLDs, not just non ccNSO members. The idea is that if we have, for example, one qualified ccNSO member and one non-qualified non member, we have to select the non-member. That inevitably leads to the situation when we cannot have the best people. We should be able to select the most qualified people, whether they are members or non-members should not play any role. Therefore, I would like to keep it the way it was, i.e. “representatives of ccTLDs”
Therefore, our advice would be to change / interpret amend the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean as follows:
We won’t be able to amend the Bylaws so quickly. The Board needs to approve the IFRT. I think we should ask them to interpret the Bylaws in a way that would allow us to appoint three members, instead of two. Any other suggestions for this wording? Kind regards, ]{atrina From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: 22 November 2018 17:23 To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT Dear Colleagues, As you remember, the Board asked us to put in writing our struggle with the selection of ccTLD representatives to the IFRT. Please find a draft below. Please let me know by 30 November if you have any suggestions on how to improve the text. Thank you! ]{atrina -- During the bilateral meeting between the ICANN Board and ccNSO on Wednesday, 24 October, 2018, we briefly touched upon the issue the ccNSO is facing in selecting a non-ccNSO member on the IANA Function Review team (IFRT). As agreed, the ccNSO Council is sending you a more detailed explanation of the issue. According to section 18.7 (a) and (b) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council is required to appoint 3 members on the IFRT: (a) Two representatives from ccNSO member ccTLD registry operator representatives; (b) at least one (1) non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO. This needs to be read in the context of section 18.8 (c ): the ccNSO and Registries Stakeholder Group shall not appoint multiple members who are citizens of countries from the same ICANN Geographic Region. On 20 July, initial information about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed. Following that, from 10 August to 24 August, the call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; from 27 August to 10 September, second call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; as suggested in the Bylaws, the ccNSO Council reached out to the Regional ccTLD organisations who informed their members on their respective email lists and encouraged their members to apply; An announcements was published on the ccNSO Website; Several reminders we sent to the email lists – 14 August, 21 August, 7 September. Unfortunately, despite the efforts listed above, the ccNSO was not able to secure a volunteer from a ccTLD registry operator that is not a member of the ccNSO. To ensure that the ccTLD community at large is properly represented, the ccNSO Council decided to appoint three members to the IFRT. The third person, also a representative of a member of the ccNSO, is appointed on an interim basis. This person will step down and be replaced on the IFRT if a candidate from a non-ccNSO ccTLD manager with the required skills and experience, as defined in the original call for volunteers, steps forward. It must be noted that if this person is from an ICANN Geographic Region of one of the two other selected and most preferred representatives from the ccNSO membership, it will have a knock-on effect: to meet the hard-coded diversity criteria, the representative will have to step down. Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs as members to the IFRT. Our advice would be to change / interpret the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean: “Three representatives appointed by the ccNSO from ccTLD registry operator representatives; to the extent possible and reasonable, the ccNSO should strive to appoint at least one non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO.” -- Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy [eurid.eu]. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. Other languages: English [eurid.eu]Estonian [eurid.eu]Italian [eurid.eu]Maltese [eurid.eu]Romanian [eurid.eu]Swedish [eurid.eu] Czech [eurid.eu]Spanish [eurid.eu]Latvian [eurid.eu]Dutch [eurid.eu]Slovak [eurid.eu]Greek [eurid.eu] Danish [eurid.eu]French [eurid.eu]Lithuanian [eurid.eu]Polish [eurid.eu]Slovenian [eurid.eu]Bulgarian [eurid.eu] German [eurid.eu]Gaelic [eurid.eu]Hungarian [eurid.eu]Portuguese [eurid.eu]Finnish [eurid.eu]Croatian [eurid.eu] Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council -- Sent from my Android device with XGenPlus.
Thanks Brat for sharing the document. It looks like that all council members are also part of the ccTLD world mailing list but I have not seen any email, just to ensure that we are not missing something. If you need my consent, pl get me added. @katrina , you are much better equipped of previous knowledge. Pl use/ignore my suggestion as need be. Thanks. Ajay On 23 November 2018 14:31:29 GMT+05:30, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote:
Katrina, all,
The email list is called the ccTLD World list: see the procedural documentation pertaining to the use of this email list: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/c...
Kind regards,
Bart
From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Date: Friday, 23 November 2018 at 09:31 To: 'Ajay Data' <ajay@xgenplus.com>, "Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu" <Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT
Hi Ajay,
Thank you for the suggestion; however, if I’m not mistaken, in all our documents we call it ccTLD world list. The Secretariat will correct me if I’m wrong.
Kind regards,
]{atrina
From: Ajay Data [mailto:ajay@xgenplus.com] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 4:49 AM To: katrina@nic.lv; Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT
Hello Katrina
How about calling the world list as Global ccTLD operators List or General ccTLD Operators List.
Thanks.
Ajay
On 22 November 2018 22:54:15 GMT+05:30, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Hi Giovanni,
Thank you for your suggestions.
A few comments back:
On 20 July 2018, initial information a communication about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all ccNSO email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed.
Technically, the ccTLD World list is not a ccNSO mailing list. Calling it a ccNSO email list is not correct. Any other suggestions how to say that?
Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs-non ccNSO members as members to the IFRT.
No, we won’t be able to select the most qualified representatives from ccTLDs, not just non ccNSO members. The idea is that if we have, for example, one qualified ccNSO member and one non-qualified non member, we have to select the non-member. That inevitably leads to the situation when we cannot have the best people. We should be able to select the most qualified people, whether they are members or non-members should not play any role.
Therefore, I would like to keep it the way it was, i.e. “representatives of ccTLDs”
Therefore, our advice would be to change / interpret amend the section 18..7 (a) and (b) to mean as follows:
We won’t be able to amend the Bylaws so quickly. The Board needs to approve the IFRT. I think we should ask them to interpret the Bylaws in a way that would allow us to appoint three members, instead of two. Any other suggestions for this wording?
Kind regards,
]{atrina
From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: 22 November 2018 17:23 To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT
Dear Colleagues,
As you remember, the Board asked us to put in writing our struggle with the selection of ccTLD representatives to the IFRT. Please find a draft below.
Please let me know by 30 November if you have any suggestions on how to improve the text.
Thank you!
]{atrina
--
During the bilateral meeting between the ICANN Board and ccNSO on Wednesday, 24 October, 2018, we briefly touched upon the issue the ccNSO is facing in selecting a non-ccNSO member on the IANA Function Review team (IFRT). As agreed, the ccNSO Council is sending you a more detailed explanation of the issue.
According to section 18.7 (a) and (b) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council is required to appoint 3 members on the IFRT:
(a) Two representatives from ccNSO member ccTLD registry operator representatives;
(b) at least one (1) non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO.
This needs to be read in the context of section 18.8 (c ): the ccNSO and Registries Stakeholder Group shall not appoint multiple members who are citizens of countries from the same ICANN Geographic Region.
On 20 July, initial information about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed. Following that, from 10 August to 24 August, the call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; from 27 August to 10 September, second call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; as suggested in the Bylaws, the ccNSO Council reached out to the Regional ccTLD organisations who informed their members on their respective email lists and encouraged their members to apply; An announcements was published on the ccNSO Website; Several reminders we sent to the email lists – 14 August, 21 August, 7 September.
Unfortunately, despite the efforts listed above, the ccNSO was not able to secure a volunteer from a ccTLD registry operator that is not a member of the ccNSO.
To ensure that the ccTLD community at large is properly represented, the ccNSO Council decided to appoint three members to the IFRT. The third person, also a representative of a member of the ccNSO, is appointed on an interim basis. This person will step down and be replaced on the IFRT if a candidate from a non-ccNSO ccTLD manager with the required skills and experience, as defined in the original call for volunteers, steps forward. It must be noted that if this person is from an ICANN Geographic Region of one of the two other selected and most preferred representatives from the ccNSO membership, it will have a knock-on effect: to meet the hard-coded diversity criteria, the representative will have to step down.
Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs as members to the IFRT.
Our advice would be to change / interpret the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean:
“Three representatives appointed by the ccNSO from ccTLD registry operator representatives; to the extent possible and reasonable, the ccNSO should strive to appoint at least one non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO.”
--
Disclaimer:
This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy [eurid.eu]. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses.
Other languages:
English [eurid.eu]Estonian [eurid.eu]Italian [eurid.eu]Maltese [eurid.eu]Romanian [eurid.eu]Swedish [eurid.eu] Czech [eurid.eu]Spanish [eurid.eu]Latvian [eurid.eu]Dutch [eurid.eu]Slovak [eurid.eu]Greek [eurid.eu] Danish [eurid.eu]French [eurid.eu]Lithuanian [eurid.eu]Polish [eurid.eu]Slovenian [eurid.eu]Bulgarian [eurid.eu] German [eurid.eu]Gaelic [eurid.eu]Hungarian [eurid.eu]Portuguese [eurid.eu]Finnish [eurid.eu]Croatian [eurid.eu]
Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
-- Sent from my Android device with XGenPlus.
-- Sent from my Android device with XGenPlus.
Katrina/Giovanni, I concur with Giovanni’s modifications to Katrina’s original, as well as Katrina’s modifications to Giovanni’s text. I think it’s a “go”. Being a rather strict constructionalist when it comes to the Bylaws, I can concur with Katrina’s suggestion regarding having the Board “interpret” the relevant Bylaw. To me, that’s a very slippery slope. Best, /Stephen PS: The Board could act fairly quickly; the hold up will be with the ECA, particularly if this ends up being a fundamental bylaw change, which would trigger an Approval Action, which are tricker to manage than a Rejection Action. Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style On Nov 22, 2018, at 12:24, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote: Hi Giovanni, Thank you for your suggestions. A few comments back:
On 20 July 2018, initial information a communication about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all ccNSO email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed.
Technically, the ccTLD World list is not a ccNSO mailing list. Calling it a ccNSO email list is not correct. Any other suggestions how to say that?
Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs-non ccNSO members as members to the IFRT.
No, we won’t be able to select the most qualified representatives from ccTLDs, not just non ccNSO members. The idea is that if we have, for example, one qualified ccNSO member and one non-qualified non member, we have to select the non-member. That inevitably leads to the situation when we cannot have the best people. We should be able to select the most qualified people, whether they are members or non-members should not play any role. Therefore, I would like to keep it the way it was, i.e. “representatives of ccTLDs”
Therefore, our advice would be to change / interpret amend the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean as follows:
We won’t be able to amend the Bylaws so quickly. The Board needs to approve the IFRT. I think we should ask them to interpret the Bylaws in a way that would allow us to appoint three members, instead of two. Any other suggestions for this wording? Kind regards, ]{atrina From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: 22 November 2018 17:23 To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT Dear Colleagues, As you remember, the Board asked us to put in writing our struggle with the selection of ccTLD representatives to the IFRT. Please find a draft below. Please let me know by 30 November if you have any suggestions on how to improve the text. Thank you! ]{atrina -- During the bilateral meeting between the ICANN Board and ccNSO on Wednesday, 24 October, 2018, we briefly touched upon the issue the ccNSO is facing in selecting a non-ccNSO member on the IANA Function Review team (IFRT). As agreed, the ccNSO Council is sending you a more detailed explanation of the issue. According to section 18.7 (a) and (b) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council is required to appoint 3 members on the IFRT: (a) Two representatives from ccNSO member ccTLD registry operator representatives; (b) at least one (1) non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO. This needs to be read in the context of section 18.8 (c ): the ccNSO and Registries Stakeholder Group shall not appoint multiple members who are citizens of countries from the same ICANN Geographic Region. On 20 July, initial information about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed. Following that, * from 10 August to 24 August, the call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * from 27 August to 10 September, second call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * as suggested in the Bylaws, the ccNSO Council reached out to the Regional ccTLD organisations who informed their members on their respective email lists and encouraged their members to apply; * An announcements was published on the ccNSO Website; * Several reminders we sent to the email lists – 14 August, 21 August, 7 September. Unfortunately, despite the efforts listed above, the ccNSO was not able to secure a volunteer from a ccTLD registry operator that is not a member of the ccNSO. To ensure that the ccTLD community at large is properly represented, the ccNSO Council decided to appoint three members to the IFRT. The third person, also a representative of a member of the ccNSO, is appointed on an interim basis. This person will step down and be replaced on the IFRT if a candidate from a non-ccNSO ccTLD manager with the required skills and experience, as defined in the original call for volunteers, steps forward. It must be noted that if this person is from an ICANN Geographic Region of one of the two other selected and most preferred representatives from the ccNSO membership, it will have a knock-on effect: to meet the hard-coded diversity criteria, the representative will have to step down. Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs as members to the IFRT. Our advice would be to change / interpret the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean: “Three representatives appointed by the ccNSO from ccTLD registry operator representatives; to the extent possible and reasonable, the ccNSO should strive to appoint at least one non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO.” -- Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy<https://eurid.eu/en/other-infomation/privacy-policy>. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. Other languages: English<http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer> Estonian<http://www.eurid.eu/et/legal-disclaimer> Italian<http://www.eurid.eu/it/legal-disclaimer> Maltese<http://www.eurid.eu/mt/legal-disclaimer> Romanian<http://www.eurid.eu/ro/legal-disclaimer> Swedish<http://www.eurid.eu/sv/legal-disclaimer> Czech<http://www.eurid.eu/cs/legal-disclaimer> Spanish<http://www.eurid.eu/es/legal-disclaimer> Latvian<http://www.eurid.eu/lv/legal-disclaimer> Dutch<http://www.eurid.eu/nl/legal-disclaimer> Slovak<http://www.eurid.eu/sk/legal-disclaimer> Greek<http://www.eurid.eu/el/legal-disclaimer> Danish<http://www.eurid.eu/da/legal-disclaimer> French<http://www.eurid.eu/fr/legal-disclaimer> Lithuanian<http://www.eurid.eu/lt/legal-disclaimer> Polish<http://www.eurid.eu/pl/legal-disclaimer> Slovenian<http://www.eurid.eu/sl/legal-disclaimer> Bulgarian<http://www.eurid.eu/bg/legal-disclaimer> German<http://www.eurid.eu/de/legal-disclaimer> Gaelic<http://www.eurid.eu/ga/legal-disclaimer> Hungarian<http://www.eurid.eu/hu/legal-disclaimer> Portuguese<http://www.eurid.eu/pt/legal-disclaimer> Finnish<http://www.eurid.eu/fi/legal-disclaimer> Croatian<http://www.eurid.eu/hr/legal-disclaimer> _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
Dear Katrina, Thanks for the draft. Let me make one suggestion - not very strongly, though. How about changing the sentence Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. to Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6% and about two-thirds of ccTLD registries have already become members of ccNSO. ? Statiscally, we can say - if the membership grows in further excess of two-thirds, the expected number of non-ccTLD registries out of three interested registries is less than one(1). This change has pros and cons, because it's just about two thirds now. So, I'm not insisting but hope it's worth thinking about it. Hiro On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 18:23:26 +0200 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you remember, the Board asked us to put in writing our struggle with the selection of ccTLD representatives to the IFRT. Please find a draft below.
Please let me know by 30 November if you have any suggestions on how to improve the text.
Thank you!
]{atrina
--
During the bilateral meeting between the ICANN Board and ccNSO on Wednesday, 24 October, 2018, we briefly touched upon the issue the ccNSO is facing in selecting a non-ccNSO member on the IANA Function Review team (IFRT). As agreed, the ccNSO Council is sending you a more detailed explanation of the issue.
According to section 18.7 (a) and (b) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council is required to appoint 3 members on the IFRT:
(a) Two representatives from ccNSO member ccTLD registry operator representatives;
(b) at least one (1) non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO.
This needs to be read in the context of section 18.8 (c ): the ccNSO and Registries Stakeholder Group shall not appoint multiple members who are citizens of countries from the same ICANN Geographic Region.
On 20 July, initial information about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed. Following that,
* from 10 August to 24 August, the call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * from 27 August to 10 September, second call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * as suggested in the Bylaws, the ccNSO Council reached out to the Regional ccTLD organisations who informed their members on their respective email lists and encouraged their members to apply; * An announcements was published on the ccNSO Website; * Several reminders we sent to the email lists - 14 August, 21 August, 7 September.
Unfortunately, despite the efforts listed above, the ccNSO was not able to secure a volunteer from a ccTLD registry operator that is not a member of the ccNSO.
To ensure that the ccTLD community at large is properly represented, the ccNSO Council decided to appoint three members to the IFRT. The third person, also a representative of a member of the ccNSO, is appointed on an interim basis. This person will step down and be replaced on the IFRT if a candidate from a non-ccNSO ccTLD manager with the required skills and experience, as defined in the original call for volunteers, steps forward. It must be noted that if this person is from an ICANN Geographic Region of one of the two other selected and most preferred representatives from the ccNSO membership, it will have a knock-on effect: to meet the hard-coded diversity criteria, the representative will have to step down.
Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs as members to the IFRT.
Our advice would be to change / interpret the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean:
"Three representatives appointed by the ccNSO from ccTLD registry operator representatives; to the extent possible and reasonable, the ccNSO should strive to appoint at least one non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO."
--
Dear Hiro, Thank you! Noted! Kind regards, ]{atrina -----Original Message----- From: hotta@jprs.co.jp [mailto:hotta@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 2:47 PM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Letter to the Board re IFRT Dear Katrina, Thanks for the draft. Let me make one suggestion - not very strongly, though. How about changing the sentence Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. to Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6% and about two-thirds of ccTLD registries have already become members of ccNSO. ? Statiscally, we can say - if the membership grows in further excess of two-thirds, the expected number of non-ccTLD registries out of three interested registries is less than one(1). This change has pros and cons, because it's just about two thirds now. So, I'm not insisting but hope it's worth thinking about it. Hiro On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 18:23:26 +0200 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you remember, the Board asked us to put in writing our struggle with the selection of ccTLD representatives to the IFRT. Please find a
draft below.
Please let me know by 30 November if you have any suggestions on how to improve the text.
Thank you!
]{atrina
--
During the bilateral meeting between the ICANN Board and ccNSO on Wednesday, 24 October, 2018, we briefly touched upon the issue the ccNSO is facing in selecting a non-ccNSO member on the IANA Function Review team (IFRT). As agreed, the ccNSO Council is sending you a more detailed explanation of the issue.
According to section 18.7 (a) and (b) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council is required to appoint 3 members on the IFRT:
(a) Two representatives from ccNSO member ccTLD registry operator representatives;
(b) at least one (1) non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO.
This needs to be read in the context of section 18.8 (c ): the ccNSO and Registries Stakeholder Group shall not appoint multiple members who are citizens of countries from the same ICANN Geographic Region.
On 20 July, initial information about the coming call for volunteers was sent out to all email lists under auspices of the ccNSO, including the ccTLD world list to which all ccTLD managers are subscribed. Following that,
* from 10 August to 24 August, the call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * from 27 August to 10 September, second call for volunteers was announced to all email lists; * as suggested in the Bylaws, the ccNSO Council reached out to the Regional ccTLD organisations who informed their members on their respective email lists and encouraged their members to apply; * An announcements was published on the ccNSO Website; * Several reminders we sent to the email lists - 14 August, 21 August, 7 September.
Unfortunately, despite the efforts listed above, the ccNSO was not able to secure a volunteer from a ccTLD registry operator that is not a member of the ccNSO.
To ensure that the ccTLD community at large is properly represented, the ccNSO Council decided to appoint three members to the IFRT. The third person, also a representative of a member of the ccNSO, is appointed on an interim basis. This person will step down and be replaced on the IFRT if a candidate from a non-ccNSO ccTLD manager with the required skills and experience, as defined in the original call
for volunteers, steps forward.
It must be noted that if this person is from an ICANN Geographic Region of one of the two other selected and most preferred representatives from the ccNSO membership, it will have a knock-on effect: to meet the hard-coded diversity criteria, the representative will have to step down.
Since 1 October 2016 when the new ICANN Bylaws came into effect, the membership of the ccNSO has grown by 6%. In future, the continuing growth of the ccNSO and/or the geographic diversity requirement will make it harder and harder - if not impossible - to select the most qualified representatives of ccTLDs as members to the IFRT.
Our advice would be to change / interpret the section 18.7 (a) and (b) to mean:
"Three representatives appointed by the ccNSO from ccTLD registry operator representatives; to the extent possible and reasonable, the ccNSO should strive to appoint at least one non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO."
--
participants (6)
-
Ajay Data -
Bart Boswinkel -
Giovanni Seppia -
HiroHOTTA -
Katrina Sataki -
Stephen Deerhake ＠ ASNIC