Dear Colleagues, Just as a reminder, below are the CWG nominees: Nominees (in alphabetical order) Dina Beer, .il Lise Fuhr, .dk Govind, .in Erick Iriarte Ahon, .pe Staffan Jonson, .se Paul Kane, .ac Eberhard Lisse, .na Vika Mpisane, .za Wang Wei, .cn From: Byron Holland Sent: October-03-14 12:37 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: CWG Member selection Importance: High Dear Colleagues, I think we have to quickly hit 'reset' on the selection process for the CWG. Time constraints and a lack of a clearly defined process upfront have led to the considerable confusion surrounding the selection criteria for the five CWG members. Having recently just selected our members for the ICG - a process in which we announced before things got going that the choice would be largely made by a small special committee of Council, thus allowing the nuanced discussion of who could best represent the ccTLD community to be weighed against the many 'diversity' related factors e.g. geographic region, size of registry, etc. we also wish to achieve. In the current CWG selection process we never defined beforehand what the selection process would be and what criteria would be applied. Many of us have brought different filters to making the decision, none of which are incorrect, but they have not to my mind resulted in a clean, transparent, objective outcome. So, the best path forward would be to hit 're-set' and call for another poll from Council, but with the 'criteria' clear at the outset: the top five candidates will form the ccNSO choice for CWG membership. Please send your selections directly to Bart, cc'ing the Council, by no later than Monday. Thank you and best regards, Byron

My choices are as per the original poll outcome, namely: Erick Iriarte Lise Fuhr Vika Mpisane Paul Kane Staffan Jonson Cheers Keith On 4/10/2014 5:36 a.m., Byron Holland wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

I think we have to quickly hit ‘reset’ on the selection process for the CWG. Time constraints and a lack of a clearly defined process upfront have led to the considerable confusion surrounding the selection criteria for the five CWG members.

Having recently just selected our members for the ICG – a process in which we announced before things got going that the choice would be largely made by a small special committee of Council, thus allowing the nuanced discussion of who could best represent the ccTLD community to be weighed against the many ‘diversity’ related factors e.g. geographic region, size of registry, etc. we also wish to achieve. In the current CWG selection process we never defined beforehand what the selection process would be and what criteria would be applied. Many of us have brought different filters to making the decision, none of which are incorrect, but they have not to my mind resulted in a clean, transparent, objective outcome.

So, the best path forward would be to hit ‘re-set’ and call for another poll from Council, but with the ‘criteria’ clear at the outset: the top five candidates will form the ccNSO choice for CWG membership.

Please send your selections directly to Bart, cc’ing the Council, by no later than Monday.

Thank you and best regards,

Byron