Hello I too have a few comments. They flow from the, perhaps inappropriate, use of the words "will" and "shall" which cause me problems, as they have specific meanings, implying mandatoriness. In other words, they appear (to use a term often heard in English local government, and which I'm sure Lesley will recognise) to "fetter the discretion of the Council" (and that is something usually not allowed). Lesley said:

- If there are five or fewer candidates, I do not think that we should ‘automatically’ confirm them. For example, there may be a totally unsuitable candidate. I suggest that we should add into the text that their selection is ‘subject to them meeting the selection criteria’.

I totally agree. Lesley also said

- it might also be helpful to cover what we actually do about the situation where there are less volunteers than we need, particularly as we will use this process as a template for other selections. I suggest we add text that ‘if there are insufficient volunteers, the Council will, as they see fit, seek to fill any vacancies via co-option, a further call for volunteers or any such other process they determine to be suitable’.

I also agree, subject to the 'fettering' point. So, instead of

_If 5 or fewer candidates_are nominated to become member, their selection will be confirmed by the Councilors eligible to vote, by an email decision, *by 2 December 2014*.

which appear to take the decision-making power away from Council, it should say

_If 5 or fewer candidates_are nominated, Council will determine which candidates will be selected. Council will be asked to take a decision by email before *2 December 2014*. In making its selection decision, Council may take any relevant matter into account and shall take into account, in respect of each candidate, whether it considers the candidate meets the selection criteria.

On diversity, Lesley said:

- I am unclear how the ranking of candidates process enables us to _fully_ take into account regional and gender diversity etc. I understand that each Councillor will bear this in mind for their individual ranking, but because the individual rankings are then combined, we could well find that the outcome is not as diverse as we would like. I suggest that the Secretariat report to the Council (the one showing the ranking) should indicate the diversity aspects by noting the gender, ICANN region, and the relevant registry for each candidate. The Council should then be required to consider diversity before deciding to confirm the ranking results and ‘may adjust the initial results if necessary for reasons of diversity’.

I also agree with this. However, I'd suggest replacing 'necessary' by 'if it so wishes'. This is not so much to re-emphaise and protect Council's decision-making powers (though it is relevant) but simply because last time we had a selection decision to make, Council decided, by a majority vote NOT to take account of the diversity criteria and chose to seat three EU candidates, and this was a decision that Council was lawfully entitled to take (never mind that I thought it unwise and voted differently).

- I do not understand why, after the initial selection of candidates the paper says that 'If, after compiling the list, two (2) to five (5) members can be appointed, the selection process is closed.’ If we only have two people (for example) for 5 seats, we will need to find some way of filling those seats, as per my second comment above.

Finally, a fourth head of Agreement If we have insufficient candidates who appear to fulfil the selection criteria, the usual method would be to go straight to co-ption. But it would be transparent to defer that for say, a week, to give time to ask for further volunteers. Hope this all assist