Hi Byron & fellow Council Members, I think this is a pragmatic way forward, in view of the urgency. I¹m sure that there are lessons to be learnt from this situation & request that we spend some time in LA (do we have a Council workshop on the Sunday?) to reflect and to develop a process we could use for any similar situation in the future. I will email my selections separately. Kind regards, Lesley From: Byron Holland <byron.holland@cira.ca> Date: Friday, 3 October 2014 17:36 To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] CWG Member selection Dear Colleagues, I think we have to quickly hit Œreset¹ 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 Œdiversity¹ 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 Œre-set¹ and call for another poll from Council, but with the Œcriteria¹ clear at the outset: the top five candidates will form the ccNSO choice for CWG membership. Please send your selections directly to Bart, cc¹ing the Council, by no later than Monday. Thank you and best regards, Byron