FW: FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: Draft Terms of Reference for Community Representatives Group regarding IRP Standing Panel Selection
Dear Colleagues, As I mentioned during the call last week, we will need to act with respect to tselecting a slate of nomineed to the IRP Standing Panel. Here is a sraft set of Terms of Reference. Please have a look and share your views by the end of the week. Thank you, ]{atrina From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 4:19 AM Subject: FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: Draft Terms of Reference for Community Representatives Group regarding IRP Standing Panel Selection Dear community leaders, Please find attached for your and your community groups’ review and feedback a draft set of Terms of Reference concerning the Community Representatives Group that will be tasked to work with ICANN org and an external consultant to select a slate of nominees to the IRP Standing Panel for confirmation by the ICANN Board. This was ICANN org’s action item from the call we all had on 27 July and we look forward to your feedback. You will see that the draft incorporates the suggestions and feedback from that call and includes a number of suggestions and questions in square brackets that await your further consideration and decision. In addition, there is a suggested timeline on Page 2 that we hope will be helpful to you in determining the level of commitment that can be expected of members of the Group. While the actual cadence, timing and duration of the Group’s meetings remain to be determined, we think that the initial work will likely require several hours of commitment per week. We look forward to receiving your input so that we can finalize the Terms of Reference as soon as possible following the end of the Expression of Interest period for potential panelists on 31 August. To that end, we propose organizing another call with you to discuss your feedback either next week or as soon as possible. At the next call, we also hope that you will be able to decide on how you wish to populate the Group so that we can proceed with the selection work without delay. We will circulate a Doodle poll shortly to determine a day and time for this next call. Thank you again for your attention and guidance on this important matter. Best regards, Mary
Thanks Katrina Comments from me: * Overall these ToR seem clear and sensible, but the timelines are ambitious! * Composition of the IRP Community Rep Group: I think only one or two representatives from each SO/AC, otherwise it’s going to be a long and painful process (see above on the ambitious timelines). I would imagine for the ccNSO we would put out a call for volunteers and then the council can decide who to appoint, so the selection process itself I am happy with the first option in square brackets “Each SO/AC shall appoint x representatives in accordance with its own internal processes etc]. If this is genuinely to be a 3-4 month project then I don’t think we need the section about replacement members. * Confidentiality, I think this should be a closed group with processes more like the Nom Com and so I don’t think we can allow observers; the transparency I think will come out once the IRP appointments are made which will presumably all be public with the background and qualifications of the appointees? * Working methods: agreed there should be a recording for transparency and archival, but not published, and yes there should be some brief high level notes and locked wiki space (assume the Nom Com does similar) * Decision making: preference by consensus of course, but if necessary decisions by majority vote with the chair having a casting vote. Best wishes Nick From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 2:18 PM To: 'ccnso-council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] FW: FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: Draft Terms of Reference for Community Representatives Group regarding IRP Standing Panel Selection Dear Colleagues, As I mentioned during the call last week, we will need to act with respect to tselecting a slate of nomineed to the IRP Standing Panel. Here is a sraft set of Terms of Reference. Please have a look and share your views by the end of the week. Thank you, ]{atrina From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 4:19 AM Subject: FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: Draft Terms of Reference for Community Representatives Group regarding IRP Standing Panel Selection Dear community leaders, Please find attached for your and your community groups’ review and feedback a draft set of Terms of Reference concerning the Community Representatives Group that will be tasked to work with ICANN org and an external consultant to select a slate of nominees to the IRP Standing Panel for confirmation by the ICANN Board. This was ICANN org’s action item from the call we all had on 27 July and we look forward to your feedback. You will see that the draft incorporates the suggestions and feedback from that call and includes a number of suggestions and questions in square brackets that await your further consideration and decision. In addition, there is a suggested timeline on Page 2 that we hope will be helpful to you in determining the level of commitment that can be expected of members of the Group. While the actual cadence, timing and duration of the Group’s meetings remain to be determined, we think that the initial work will likely require several hours of commitment per week. We look forward to receiving your input so that we can finalize the Terms of Reference as soon as possible following the end of the Expression of Interest period for potential panelists on 31 August. To that end, we propose organizing another call with you to discuss your feedback either next week or as soon as possible. At the next call, we also hope that you will be able to decide on how you wish to populate the Group so that we can proceed with the selection work without delay. We will circulate a Doodle poll shortly to determine a day and time for this next call. Thank you again for your attention and guidance on this important matter. Best regards, Mary
Hi all I support Nick’s points and don’t have any others to add. Thanks Jordan On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 03:00, Nick Wenban-Smith < Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote:
Thanks Katrina
Comments from me:
- Overall these ToR seem clear and sensible, but the timelines are ambitious! - Composition of the IRP Community Rep Group: I think only one or two representatives from each SO/AC, otherwise it’s going
to be a long and painful process (see above on the ambitious timelines). I would imagine for the ccNSO we would put out a call for volunteers and then the council can decide who to appoint, so the selection process itself I am happy with the first option in
square brackets “Each SO/AC shall appoint x representatives in accordance with its own internal processes etc]. If this is genuinely to be a 3-4 month project then I don’t think we need the section about replacement members. - Confidentiality, I think this should be a closed group with processes more like the Nom Com and so I don’t think we can allow
observers; the transparency I think will come out once the IRP appointments are made which will presumably all be public with the background and qualifications of the appointees? - Working methods: agreed there should be a recording for transparency and archival, but not published, and yes there should
be some brief high level notes and locked wiki space (assume the Nom Com does similar) - Decision making: preference by consensus of course, but if necessary decisions by majority vote with the chair having a casting
vote.
Best wishes
Nick
*From:* Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>
*On Behalf Of *Katrina Sataki
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 25, 2020 2:18 PM
*To:* 'ccnso-council' <ccnso-council@icann.org>
*Subject:* [ccnso-council] FW: FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: Draft Terms of Reference for Community Representatives Group regarding IRP Standing Panel Selection
Dear Colleagues,
As I mentioned during the call last week, we will need to act with respect to tselecting a slate of nomineed to the IRP Standing Panel. Here is a sraft set
of Terms of Reference. Please have a look and share your views by the end of the week.
Thank you,
]{atrina
*From:* Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org <mary.wong@icann.org>]
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 25, 2020 4:19 AM
*Subject:* FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: Draft Terms of Reference for Community Representatives Group regarding IRP Standing Panel Selection
Dear community leaders,
Please find attached for your and your community groups’ review and feedback a draft set of Terms of Reference concerning the Community Representatives Group that will be tasked to work with ICANN
org and an external consultant to select a slate of nominees to the IRP Standing Panel for confirmation by the ICANN Board. This was ICANN org’s action item from the call we all had on 27 July and we look forward to your feedback.
You will see that the draft incorporates the suggestions and feedback from that call and includes a number of suggestions and questions in square brackets that await your further consideration
and decision. In addition, there is a suggested timeline on Page 2 that we hope will be helpful to you in determining the level of commitment that can be expected of members of the Group. While the actual cadence, timing and duration of the Group’s meetings
remain to be determined, we think that the initial work will likely require several hours of commitment per week.
We look forward to receiving your input so that we can finalize the Terms of Reference as soon as possible following the end of the Expression of Interest period for potential panelists on 31
August. To that end, we propose organizing another call with you to discuss your feedback either next week or as soon as possible. At the next call, we also hope that you will be able to decide on how you wish to populate the Group so that we can proceed with
the selection work without delay. We will circulate a Doodle poll shortly to determine a day and time for this next call.
Thank you again for your attention and guidance on this important matter.
Best regards,
Mary
_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 -|- jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Dear All Maybe it is an issue of format incompatibility, but the numbering is odd. Going from I. to (ii) to (B) 😅 More on the substance matter, I concur with Nick's analysis overall. - Definitely it is important to limit the number of representatives per SO and AC to a maximum of 2, otherwise it can get messy and unbalanced. After writing that sentence I couldn't help to think if it shouldn't be better to have just one? Considering this person should be able to make decisions on behalf of its SO or AC. If there are two or more, how will that work? - On the replacement of members, though the process is foreseen to be done in a short period of time, to be on the safe side we could suggest to have a possible replacement already selected just in case of need (we never know what can happen). Not to delay anything by having another call for volunteers or something. And also considering that the timeline could eventually get delayed. Best regards, Alejandra -- [image: Photograph] *Alejandra Reynoso*Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt *P:* +502 23688565 *E:* alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt 18 Ave. 11-42 Zona 15, V.H. III. Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:58 PM Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
I support Nick’s points and don’t have any others to add.
Thanks Jordan
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 03:00, Nick Wenban-Smith < Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote:
Thanks Katrina
Comments from me:
- Overall these ToR seem clear and sensible, but the timelines are ambitious! - Composition of the IRP Community Rep Group: I think only one or two representatives from each SO/AC, otherwise it’s going
to be a long and painful process (see above on the ambitious timelines). I would imagine for the ccNSO we would put out a call for volunteers and then the council can decide who to appoint, so the selection process itself I am happy with the first option in
square brackets “Each SO/AC shall appoint x representatives in accordance with its own internal processes etc]. If this is genuinely to be a 3-4 month project then I don’t think we need the section about replacement members. - Confidentiality, I think this should be a closed group with processes more like the Nom Com and so I don’t think we can allow
observers; the transparency I think will come out once the IRP appointments are made which will presumably all be public with the background and qualifications of the appointees? - Working methods: agreed there should be a recording for transparency and archival, but not published, and yes there should
be some brief high level notes and locked wiki space (assume the Nom Com does similar) - Decision making: preference by consensus of course, but if necessary decisions by majority vote with the chair having a casting
vote.
Best wishes
Nick
*From:* Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>
*On Behalf Of *Katrina Sataki
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 25, 2020 2:18 PM
*To:* 'ccnso-council' <ccnso-council@icann.org>
*Subject:* [ccnso-council] FW: FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: Draft Terms of Reference for Community Representatives Group regarding IRP Standing Panel Selection
Dear Colleagues,
As I mentioned during the call last week, we will need to act with respect to tselecting a slate of nomineed to the IRP Standing Panel. Here is a sraft set
of Terms of Reference. Please have a look and share your views by the end of the week.
Thank you,
]{atrina
*From:* Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org <mary.wong@icann.org>]
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 25, 2020 4:19 AM
*Subject:* FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: Draft Terms of Reference for Community Representatives Group regarding IRP Standing Panel Selection
Dear community leaders,
Please find attached for your and your community groups’ review and feedback a draft set of Terms of Reference concerning the Community Representatives Group that will be tasked to work with ICANN
org and an external consultant to select a slate of nominees to the IRP Standing Panel for confirmation by the ICANN Board. This was ICANN org’s action item from the call we all had on 27 July and we look forward to your feedback.
You will see that the draft incorporates the suggestions and feedback from that call and includes a number of suggestions and questions in square brackets that await your further consideration
and decision. In addition, there is a suggested timeline on Page 2 that we hope will be helpful to you in determining the level of commitment that can be expected of members of the Group. While the actual cadence, timing and duration of the Group’s meetings
remain to be determined, we think that the initial work will likely require several hours of commitment per week.
We look forward to receiving your input so that we can finalize the Terms of Reference as soon as possible following the end of the Expression of Interest period for potential panelists on 31
August. To that end, we propose organizing another call with you to discuss your feedback either next week or as soon as possible. At the next call, we also hope that you will be able to decide on how you wish to populate the Group so that we can proceed with
the selection work without delay. We will circulate a Doodle poll shortly to determine a day and time for this next call.
Thank you again for your attention and guidance on this important matter.
Best regards,
Mary
_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 -|- jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Colleagues, Thank you very much for all your comments. As to Alejandra’s question:
Maybe it is an issue of format incompatibility, but the numbering is odd. Going from I. to (ii) to (B) 😅
No, it’s not a formatisation issue. It is a quote from the Bylaws, hence, the strange numbering ☺ I did not find any reference to the expected time commitment, did you? I added that as additional question. I tried to summarise and formalize the feedback. Please see if that reflects all your points: --- The ccNSO Council supports the draft ToR; however, the timelines seem overly optimistic and ambitious. Please note, that the ccNSO would need at least 3 weeks to issue a call for volunteers and select members to the group. On specific points raised in the documents, the ccNSO Council would like to propose: Composition of the IRP Community Rep Group: Preferably, one representative but, definitely, no more than two representatives from each SO/AC. Confidentiality: the process could copy (to the extent applicable) the process already in place for the NomCom. No observers should be allowed. Locked wiki space should be provided to facilitate effective and efficient collaboration within the group. Recordings should be made but not published. Brief high-level notes should be taken. Transparency: once appointments are made, the background and qualifications of the appointees should be made public. Decision making: preference by consensus, but if necessary decisions by majority vote with the chair having a casting vote. Chair: the group should be allowed to select the chair. Additional comments: for a 3-4 month project there is no need to have a process to replace members. If SO/ACs decide there is a need for such a process, SO/ACs should have possible replacement already selected and ready to step in. In addition, the ccNSO Council would like to understand the estimated time commitment expected from group members. --- Let me know if something is missing or misinterpreted! Kind regards, ]{atrina
Yes that looks spot on. N From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 7:37 PM To: ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] FW: FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: Draft Terms of Reference for Community Representatives Group regarding IRP Standing Panel Selection Dear Colleagues, Thank you very much for all your comments. As to Alejandra’s question:
Maybe it is an issue of format incompatibility, but the numbering is odd. Going from I. to (ii) to (B) 😅
No, it’s not a formatisation issue. It is a quote from the Bylaws, hence, the strange numbering ☺ I did not find any reference to the expected time commitment, did you? I added that as additional question. I tried to summarise and formalize the feedback. Please see if that reflects all your points: --- The ccNSO Council supports the draft ToR; however, the timelines seem overly optimistic and ambitious. Please note, that the ccNSO would need at least 3 weeks to issue a call for volunteers and select members to the group. On specific points raised in the documents, the ccNSO Council would like to propose: * Composition of the IRP Community Rep Group: Preferably, one representative but, definitely, no more than two representatives from each SO/AC. * Confidentiality: the process could copy (to the extent applicable) the process already in place for the NomCom. No observers should be allowed. Locked wiki space should be provided to facilitate effective and efficient collaboration within the group. Recordings should be made but not published. Brief high-level notes should be taken. * Transparency: once appointments are made, the background and qualifications of the appointees should be made public. * Decision making: preference by consensus, but if necessary decisions by majority vote with the chair having a casting vote. * Chair: the group should be allowed to select the chair. * Additional comments: for a 3-4 month project there is no need to have a process to replace members. If SO/ACs decide there is a need for such a process, SO/ACs should have possible replacement already selected and ready to step in. In addition, the ccNSO Council would like to understand the estimated time commitment expected from group members. --- Let me know if something is missing or misinterpreted! Kind regards, ]{atrina
Dear Katrina, Thank you for your email. On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:18 AM Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As I mentioned during the call last week, we will need to act with respect to tselecting a slate of nomineed to the IRP Standing Panel. Here is a sraft set of Terms of Reference. Please have a look and share your views by the end of the week.
Thank you,
]{atrina
*From:* Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 25, 2020 4:19 AM *Subject:* FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: Draft Terms of Reference for Community Representatives Group regarding IRP Standing Panel Selection
Dear community leaders,
Please find attached for your and your community groups’ review and feedback a draft set of Terms of Reference concerning the Community Representatives Group that will be tasked to work with ICANN org and an external consultant to select a slate of nominees to the IRP Standing Panel for confirmation by the ICANN Board. This was ICANN org’s action item from the call we all had on 27 July and we look forward to your feedback.
You will see that the draft incorporates the suggestions and feedback from that call and includes a number of suggestions and questions in square brackets that await your further consideration and decision. In addition, there is a suggested timeline on Page 2 that we hope will be helpful to you in determining the level of commitment that can be expected of members of the Group. While the actual cadence, timing and duration of the Group’s meetings remain to be determined, we think that the initial work will likely require several hours of commitment per week.
We look forward to receiving your input so that we can finalize the Terms of Reference as soon as possible following the end of the Expression of Interest period for potential panelists on 31 August. To that end, we propose organizing another call with you to discuss your feedback either next week or as soon as possible. At the next call, we also hope that you will be able to decide on how you wish to populate the Group so that we can proceed with the selection work without delay. We will circulate a Doodle poll shortly to determine a day and time for this next call.
Thank you again for your attention and guidance on this important matter.
Best regards,
Mary
_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- 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.
participants (5)
-
Alejandra Reynoso -
Jordan Carter -
Katrina Sataki -
Nick Wenban-Smith -
Pablo Rodriguez