Dear Eberhard,

...

What are you afraid of? Afraid? Not much. I wonder what makes you ask this question?

I wanted to know what exactly bothered you to address your concerns.

Yes, exactly, and this is the contradiction here. Namely that the nomination of candidates can be invalidated.

Nominations cannot be invalidated - nominations are seconded by another member and accepted by the nominated individual. However, members - for example, after having heard/read candidates' statements or after Q&A session - can decide that they do not want to have the nominated candidates on the Board. I do not see any contradiction. Plus, I do not think that members would select 'None of the above' just for fun. If a member decides to dismiss all the candidates, there surely must be a good reason for that; and should a member wish to do so, there must be a mechanism.

I am aware that we decided to do it differently, many years ago by having members vote.

Do I understand it correctly that this was not the breach of the Bylaws you were talking about? Breach of which article did you mean then?

Though I do not remember whether we voted on this or whether it was just a Council guideline.

We do not have "Council guidelines". All our guidelines are ccNSO guidelines.

I doubt that this (the now none-of the above option) has been thought through properly. Besides that I am unaware of this change in procedure having being discussed/decided by membership,

The idea came from members after the last round of voting. As I mentioned, it was presented during a GRC update at a ccNSO Members meeting. The amended guideline was published and 7 days after that came into force. Of course, if we see that it does not work, it can always be changed. But I believe it would work very well.

it has the potential to render our vote meaningless.

Vote cannot be meaningless as long as all members have equal opportunity to participate and express their opinion.

If for example a single candidate stood, was rejected and then not nominated by Council, the seat would remain unfilled.

Correct. But would it really be better to nominate a weak candidate who is not supported by members just because the candidate is the only nominated individual and we need to fill the seat? Please also note that we would be in the same situation if the only candidate failed the background check. Should the Council appoint this candidate despite the "red flag" just to fill the seat? I would expect the Council to act responsibly and not to appoint him/her. Just as I believe that ccNSO members would support the candidate they want to see on the Board.

I am not sure for how long.

For as long as it is necessary to select a great director of the Board. Vacancies is a normal part of life. Even ICANN Board directors are allowed to resign or die (hopefully, it will never happen!!!). According to the Bylaws, vacancies are filled for the remaining period of time.

We might also ask ICANN's Corporate Council for on opinion.

Well, for a whole different reason, but the guideline had been reviewed by ICANN Legal in July. We have not received any objections from them. No worries about this. Kind regards, ]{atrina