DECISION NEEDEDL: Two options for IFRT
Dear Councillors, DECISION IS NEEDED As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is - we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time. The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use. I am sending you two versions - version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two. Version A. The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds - during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet). Pluses: - it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate - it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity - except regional diversity) Minuses: - the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements) - does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair - short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days) - takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends) Version B. The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council's choices as much as possible. Pluses: - simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three) - longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days) - might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy). Minuses: - the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome. As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem - we need to act quickly. Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference - Version A or Version B - to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F.), please feel free to do it. If we agree on the procedure, then: - 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest - 21 August: closure of the call for EoI - Depending on the preferred procedure: o Version A - 5 September: three members selected o Version B - 30 August: three members selected Please let us know your preference by 5 August! Kind regards, ]{atrina
Dear Katrina and all, My first reaction is to support version A; however, I would like to hear what others have to say to make a final decision. All the best, *"Tu identidad en Internet"* PABLO RODRIGUEZ EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Phone: (787) 753-5869 | Mobile: (787) 425-1517 Direct: (787) 455-9842 | Email: pablo@nic.pr www.domains.pr <https://twitter.com/puntopr> <https://www.facebook.com/domainspr> <https://www.instagram.com/puntopr/> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
DECISION IS NEEDED
As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is – we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time.
The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use.
I am sending you two versions – version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two.
Version A.
The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds – during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet).
Pluses:
- it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate
- it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity – except regional diversity)
Minuses:
- the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements)
- does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair
- short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days)
- takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends)
Version B.
The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council’s choices as much as possible.
Pluses:
- simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three)
- longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days)
- might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy).
Minuses:
- the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome.
As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem – we need to act quickly.
Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference – Version A or Version B – to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F…), please feel free to do it.
If we agree on the procedure, then:
- 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest
- 21 August: closure of the call for EoI
- Depending on the preferred procedure:
o Version A – 5 September: three members selected
o Version B – 30 August: three members selected
Please let us know your preference by 5 August!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
dear Katrina and all My choice: option A best regard Souleymane 2018-07-27 16:04 GMT+00:00 Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>:
Dear Councillors,
DECISION IS NEEDED
As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is – we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time.
The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use.
I am sending you two versions – version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two.
Version A.
The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds – during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet).
Pluses:
- it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate
- it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity – except regional diversity)
Minuses:
- the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements)
- does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair
- short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days)
- takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends)
Version B.
The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council’s choices as much as possible.
Pluses:
- simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three)
- longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days)
- might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy).
Minuses:
- the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome.
As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem – we need to act quickly.
Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference – Version A or Version B – to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F…), please feel free to do it.
If we agree on the procedure, then:
- 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest
- 21 August: closure of the call for EoI
- Depending on the preferred procedure:
o Version A – 5 September: three members selected
o Version B – 30 August: three members selected
Please let us know your preference by 5 August!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
Version A pse. On 27/07/2018 19:04, Katrina Sataki wrote:
Dear Councillors,
DECISION IS NEEDED
As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is – we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time.
The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use.
I am sending you two versions – version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two.
Version A.
The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds – during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet).
Pluses:
-it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate
-it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity – except regional diversity)
Minuses:
-the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements)
-does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair
-short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days)
-takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends)
Version B.
The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council’s choices as much as possible.
Pluses:
-simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three)
-longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days)
-might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy).
Minuses:
-the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome.
As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem – we need to act quickly.
Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference – Version A or Version B – to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F…), please feel free to do it.
If we agree on the procedure, then:
-7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest
-21 August: closure of the call for EoI
-Depending on the preferred procedure:
oVersion A – 5 September: three members selected
oVersion B – 30 August: three members selected
Please let us know your preference by 5 August!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
-- Eng. Abibu R. Ntahigiye | CEO, Tanzania Network Information Centre, 147 Kambarage Road - Mikocheni Tel: +255 (22) 2772659 | Mobile: +255 767 279511 Fax: +255 (22) 2772660 Email: abibu@tznic.or.tz | Website: www.tznic.or.tz Visit www.karibu.tz for your .tz domain registration
Hi Katrina, Thanks for this. I prefer Version B. Best, Giovanni Giovanni Seppia External Relations Manager EURid Woluwelaan 150 1831 Diegem - Belgium TEL: +32 (0) 2 401 2750 MOB:+39 335 8141733 giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu<mailto:giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu> http://www.eurid.eu<http://www.eurid.eu/> [WA_signaturebanner_2018] Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: 27 July 2018 18:05 To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] DECISION NEEDEDL: Two options for IFRT Dear Councillors, DECISION IS NEEDED As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is - we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time. The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use. I am sending you two versions - version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two. Version A. The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds - during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet). Pluses: - it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate - it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity - except regional diversity) Minuses: - the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements) - does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair - short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days) - takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends) Version B. The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council's choices as much as possible. Pluses: - simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three) - longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days) - might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy). Minuses: - the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome. As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem - we need to act quickly. Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference - Version A or Version B - to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F...), please feel free to do it. If we agree on the procedure, then: - 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest - 21 August: closure of the call for EoI - Depending on the preferred procedure: o Version A - 5 September: three members selected o Version B - 30 August: three members selected Please let us know your preference by 5 August! Kind regards, ]{atrina 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
Dear Katrina, I prefer version A, Thank you, Kind regards, Abdalla From: "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> To: "ccnso-council" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 7:04:34 PM Subject: [ccnso-council] DECISION NEEDEDL: Two options for IFRT Dear Councillors, DECISION IS NEEDED As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is – we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time. The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use. I am sending you two versions – version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two. Version A. The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds – during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet). Pluses: - it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate - it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity – except regional diversity) Minuses: - the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements) - does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair - short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days) - takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends) Version B. The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council’s choices as much as possible. Pluses: - simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three) - longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days) - might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy). Minuses: - the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome. As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem – we need to act quickly. Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference – Version A or Version B – to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F…), please feel free to do it. If we agree on the procedure, then: - 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest - 21 August: closure of the call for EoI - Depending on the preferred procedure: o Version A – 5 September: three members selected o Version B – 30 August: three members selected Please let us know your preference by 5 August! Kind regards, ]{atrina _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
Dear Katrina, I am in favor of option B. Thank you, Christelle Vaval Cabinet Salès 62, rue Geffrard (angle rue Chavannes) HT 6140, Pétion-Ville, Haiti Tél: (509) 2815-1500 Fax: (509) 2256-5107 Email: <mailto:cvaval@cabinetsales.com> cvaval@cabinetsales.com Pensez-y avant dimprimer. | Think before printing. AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ - Ce message est pour l'usage exclusif du (des) destinataire(s) mentionné(s) ci-dessus. Il peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, propriétaire, confidentielle et/ou dispensée de divulgation par la loi. Si vous n'êtes pas un destinataire nommé ou si vous l'avez reçu par erreur, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur et l'effacer sans le copier ni le divulguer à quiconque, ni n'en faire aucun usage. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This communication is for the exclusive use of the above-named recipient(s). It may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient or have received it in error, immediately notify the sender and delete it without copying it, disclosing it to anyone or making any use of it. AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD - Este mensaje es para el uso exclusivo del (de los) destinatario(s) indicados más arriba y puede tener información privilegiada, propietaria, confidencial y/o legalmente no divulgable. Si usted no es un destinatario de este mensaje o lo recibe por error, se le pide avisar inmediatamente al remitente y eliminar el mensaje sin copiarlo, divulgarlo o hacer cualquier otro uso del mismo. From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: July 27, 2018 12:05 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] DECISION NEEDEDL: Two options for IFRT Dear Councillors, DECISION IS NEEDED As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time. The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use. I am sending you two versions version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two. Version A. The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet). Pluses: * it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate * it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity except regional diversity) Minuses: * the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements) * does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair * short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days) * takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends) Version B. The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Councils choices as much as possible. Pluses: * simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three) * longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days) * might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy). Minuses: * the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome. As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem we need to act quickly. Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference Version A or Version B to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F ), please feel free to do it. If we agree on the procedure, then: * 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest * 21 August: closure of the call for EoI * Depending on the preferred procedure: * Version A 5 September: three members selected * Version B 30 August: three members selected Please let us know your preference by 5 August! Kind regards, ]{atrina
+1 , option B Regards M Margarita Valdés Cortés, MBM-UAI Legal & Business Manager NIC Chile - University of Chile www.nic.cl +56229407734 El 30-07-2018, a la(s) 19:01, <cvaval@cabinetsales.com> <cvaval@cabinetsales.com> escribió:
Dear Katrina,
I am in favor of option B.
Thank you,
Christelle Vaval
<image001.jpg>Cabinet Salès 62, rue Geffrard (angle rue Chavannes) HT 6140, Pétion-Ville, Haiti Tél: (509) 2815-1500 Fax: (509) 2256-5107 Email: cvaval@cabinetsales.com
Pensez-y avant d’imprimer. | Think before printing.
AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ - Ce message est pour l'usage exclusif du (des) destinataire(s) mentionné(s) ci-dessus. Il peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, propriétaire, confidentielle et/ou dispensée de divulgation par la loi. Si vous n'êtes pas un destinataire nommé ou si vous l'avez reçu par erreur, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur et l'effacer sans le copier ni le divulguer à quiconque, ni n'en faire aucun usage.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This communication is for the exclusive use of the above-named recipient(s). It may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient or have received it in error, immediately notify the sender and delete it without copying it, disclosing it to anyone or making any use of it.
AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD - Este mensaje es para el uso exclusivo del (de los) destinatario(s) indicados más arriba y puede tener información privilegiada, propietaria, confidencial y/o legalmente no divulgable. Si usted no es un destinatario de este mensaje o lo recibe por error, se le pide avisar inmediatamente al remitente y eliminar el mensaje sin copiarlo, divulgarlo o hacer cualquier otro uso del mismo.
From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: July 27, 2018 12:05 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] DECISION NEEDEDL: Two options for IFRT
Dear Councillors,
DECISION IS NEEDED
As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is – we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time.
The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use.
I am sending you two versions – version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two.
Version A.
The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds – during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet).
Pluses: it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity – except regional diversity) Minuses: the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements) does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days) takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends)
Version B.
The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council’s choices as much as possible.
Pluses: simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three) longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days) might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy). Minuses: the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome. As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem – we need to act quickly.
Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference – Version A or Version B – to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F…), please feel free to do it.
If we agree on the procedure, then: 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest 21 August: closure of the call for EoI Depending on the preferred procedure: Version A – 5 September: three members selected Version B – 30 August: three members selected Please let us know your preference by 5 August!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
Dear Katrina I prefer option B. Best regards, Alejandra -- [image: Photograph] *Alejandra Reynoso*Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt *P:* +502 23688565 *E:* alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt 18 Ave. 11 <https://maps.google.com/?q=18+Ave.+11&entry=gmail&source=g>-42 Zona 15, V.H. III. Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
DECISION IS NEEDED
As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is – we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time.
The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use.
I am sending you two versions – version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two.
Version A.
The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds – during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet).
Pluses:
- it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate
- it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity – except regional diversity)
Minuses:
- the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements)
- does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair
- short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days)
- takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends)
Version B.
The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council’s choices as much as possible.
Pluses:
- simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three)
- longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days)
- might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy).
Minuses:
- the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome.
As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem – we need to act quickly.
Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference – Version A or Version B – to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F…), please feel free to do it.
If we agree on the procedure, then:
- 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest
- 21 August: closure of the call for EoI
- Depending on the preferred procedure:
o Version A – 5 September: three members selected
o Version B – 30 August: three members selected
Please let us know your preference by 5 August!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
Hi Katrina Option B is my preference Thanks Debbie
On 28/07/2018, at 04:04, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
DECISION IS NEEDED
As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is – we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time.
The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use.
I am sending you two versions – version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two.
Version A.
The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds – during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet).
Pluses: - it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate - it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity – except regional diversity)
Minuses: - the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements) - does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair - short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days) - takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends)
Version B.
The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council’s choices as much as possible.
Pluses: - simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three) - longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days) - might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy).
Minuses: - the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome.
As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem – we need to act quickly.
Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference – Version A or Version B – to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F…), please feel free to do it.
If we agree on the procedure, then: - 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest - 21 August: closure of the call for EoI - Depending on the preferred procedure: o Version A – 5 September: three members selected o Version B – 30 August: three members selected
Please let us know your preference by 5 August!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
<ccNSO Guideline Appointment IFRT members version 1-B.doc><ccNSO Guideline Appointment IFRT members version 1-A.doc>_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
Dear all, I’m in favor for option B. Given, that I won’t be in office starting next week till beginning of September, option A is not feasible for me. I’ll have access to mail etc. but not planning to check it on a daily basis. Best, Peter From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Date: Friday, 27 July 2018 at 18:05 To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] DECISION NEEDEDL: Two options for IFRT Dear Councillors, DECISION IS NEEDED As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is – we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time. The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use. I am sending you two versions – version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two. Version A. The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds – during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet). Pluses: * it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate * it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity – except regional diversity) Minuses: * the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements) * does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair * short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days) * takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends) Version B. The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council’s choices as much as possible. Pluses: * simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three) * longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days) * might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy). Minuses: * the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome. As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem – we need to act quickly. Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference – Version A or Version B – to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F…), please feel free to do it. If we agree on the procedure, then: * 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest * 21 August: closure of the call for EoI * Depending on the preferred procedure: * Version A – 5 September: three members selected * Version B – 30 August: three members selected Please let us know your preference by 5 August! Kind regards, ]{atrina
Option B. /Stephen From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Date: Friday, July 27, 2018 at 12:05 To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] DECISION NEEDEDL: Two options for IFRT Dear Councillors, DECISION IS NEEDED As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is – we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time. The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use. I am sending you two versions – version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two. Version A. The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds – during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet). Pluses: * it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate * it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity – except regional diversity) Minuses: * the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements) * does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair * short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days) * takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends) Version B. The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council’s choices as much as possible. Pluses: * simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three) * longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days) * might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy). Minuses: * the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome. As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem – we need to act quickly. Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference – Version A or Version B – to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F…), please feel free to do it. If we agree on the procedure, then: * 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest * 21 August: closure of the call for EoI * Depending on the preferred procedure: * Version A – 5 September: three members selected * Version B – 30 August: three members selected Please let us know your preference by 5 August! Kind regards, ]{atrina
Dear Katrina, Although I would have prefer version A, is evident that for a multiplicity of reasons version B is the clear preferred option. Consequently, I will support version B. All the best, *"Tu identidad en Internet"* PABLO RODRIGUEZ EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Phone: (787) 753-5869 | Mobile: (787) 425-1517 Direct: (787) 455-9842 | Email: pablo@nic.pr www.domains.pr <https://twitter.com/puntopr> <https://www.facebook.com/domainspr> <https://www.instagram.com/puntopr/> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
DECISION IS NEEDED
As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is – we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time.
The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use.
I am sending you two versions – version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two.
Version A.
The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds – during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet).
Pluses:
- it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate
- it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity – except regional diversity)
Minuses:
- the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements)
- does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair
- short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days)
- takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends)
Version B.
The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council’s choices as much as possible.
Pluses:
- simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three)
- longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days)
- might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy).
Minuses:
- the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome.
As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem – we need to act quickly.
Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference – Version A or Version B – to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F…), please feel free to do it.
If we agree on the procedure, then:
- 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest
- 21 August: closure of the call for EoI
- Depending on the preferred procedure:
o Version A – 5 September: three members selected
o Version B – 30 August: three members selected
Please let us know your preference by 5 August!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
Same as Pablo here. best demi On 31/07/2018 15:39, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
Dear Katrina, Although I would have prefer version A, is evident that for a multiplicity of reasons version B is the clear preferred option. Consequently, I will support version B. All the best,
//
/"Tu identidad en Internet"/
PABLO RODRIGUEZ
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
Phone: (787) 753-5869 | Mobile: (787) 425-1517 Direct: (787) 455-9842 | Email:pablo@nic.pr <mailto:pablo@nic.pr> www.domains.pr <http://www.domains.pr/> <https://twitter.com/puntopr> <https://www.facebook.com/domainspr> <https://www.instagram.com/puntopr/>
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
DECISION IS NEEDED
As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is – we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time.
The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use.
I am sending you two versions – version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two.
Version A.
The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds – during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet).
Pluses:
-it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate
-it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity – except regional diversity)
Minuses:
-the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements)
-does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair
-short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days)
-takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends)
Version B.
The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council’s choices as much as possible.
Pluses:
-simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three)
-longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days)
-might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy).
Minuses:
-the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome.
As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem – we need to act quickly.
Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference – Version A or Version B – to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F…), please feel free to do it.
If we agree on the procedure, then:
-7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest
-21 August: closure of the call for EoI
-Depending on the preferred procedure:
oVersion A – 5 September: three members selected
oVersion B – 30 August: three members selected
Please let us know your preference by 5 August!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council>
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
I prefer version B. Hiro On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:04:34 +0300 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
DECISION IS NEEDED
As you remember, we must to appoint three members to IANA Function Review team (IFRT). We have to appoint 2 representatives from ccTLDs that are ccNSO members and 1 representative from a ccTLD that is not a ccNSO member. Plus, each our appointed member has to be from a different ICANN region. That is - we need to select three people from three ICANN regions. Appointment is due 28 August but it is already clear that we will not make it in time.
The GRC has discussed different scenarios but does not have a clear opinion on what would be the best way forward. Currently, we have come up with a temporary guideline. The idea is to test it in real life and then tweak it for future use.
I am sending you two versions - version A and version B. I will try to briefly describe the difference between the two.
Version A.
The entire Council participates in selection of each candidate. Candidates are divided in two pools (Pool A for ccNSO members and Pool B for ccNSO non-members). The voting takes place in three rounds - during each round we select ONE member from the least regionally diverse pool (or from both pools simultaneously if they are equally diverse and non-ccNSO member candidate has not been selected yet).
Pluses:
- it allows every Councillor to participate in the selection of each candidate
- it allows to weight candidates every time we know who has already been selected (gives more opportunity for diversity - except regional diversity)
Minuses:
- the algorithm is pretty complex (but that is the only one I can think of if we want 17 people to select members that match all of the requirements)
- does not take into account the willingness of candidates to be a co-chair
- short times to vote for each candidate (3 working days)
- takes longer in total (at least 9 working days plus weekends)
Version B.
The entire Council ranks all the candidates in one long list. Then the Chair and Vice-chairs go through the list and hand-pick three candidates that match regional diversity and membership criteria, taking into account Council's choices as much as possible.
Pluses:
- simpler and faster (7 working days for voting plus a couple of days to hand-pick three)
- longer time to evaluate and rank the candidates (7 working days)
- might be possible to take into account the willingness to serve as a co-chair (but that might not be easy).
Minuses:
- the ccNSO Council ranks the candidates only once and then three people determine the final outcome.
As this is temporary procedure, we can follow it or agree on a completely different mechanism. The only problem - we need to act quickly.
Therefore, by 5 August, please send your preference - Version A or Version B - to the mailing list. If you wish to propose a version C (D, E, F.), please feel free to do it.
If we agree on the procedure, then:
- 7 August: send out a call for Expression of Interest
- 21 August: closure of the call for EoI
- Depending on the preferred procedure:
o Version A - 5 September: three members selected
o Version B - 30 August: three members selected
Please let us know your preference by 5 August!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
participants (14)
-
Abdalla Omari -
Abibu R. Ntahigiye -
Alejandra Reynoso -
cvaval＠cabinetsales.com -
Debbie Monahan -
Demi Getschko -
Giovanni Seppia -
HiroHOTTA -
Katrina Sataki -
Margarita Valdes -
Pablo Rodriguez -
Peter Vergote -
Souleymane Oumtanaga -
Stephen Deerhake