Dear All, I would like to second the concerns and suggestions raised by Peter. If a revised course of action is to happen, I volunteer to assist in the process. Best regards, Carolina On 19/09/2014 10:35 a.m., Peter Van Roste wrote:

Bart, All,

I would like to express my concerns with the process set out below. I am also suggesting a way forward to some of them.

This is a crucial procedural element and I believe it is missing the essential attributes that are required and expected: Transparency and Inclusiveness.

Starting with Inclusiveness:

It is clear that the participation in any part of the process is not restricted to the ccNSO members. It is equally important that those that select these participants should not be restricted to the ccNSO either. By excluding the RO’s from contributing in the selection process we missed an excellent opportunity to show the outside world that we are serious in our commitment to make this a process hosted _/but not controlled/_ by the ccNSO. And as we learned from the ICG selection experience: perception is important otherwise we risk losing focus on the content.

On transparency: Having a list of individual councilors vote to produce (in confidence) a short list that then will be trimmed by the Council in a special council meeting seems as bad as it can get. It would be a challenge to make this even less transparent.

I suggest to:

1.Publish again on all lists the selection criteria, the names of the individuals that will (or already have) select(ed) the short list, and the criteria to be used by the council at its special meeting next week (if different from the ones used in the first round).

2.If the criteria are the same, then what is the point of having the Council members (minus the candidate) first cut down to 7 and then have the same group cut it down to 5? I strongly suggest that this decision is motivated and published.

3.After the Council meeting, it would be appropriate to send the 4 candidates who dropped out a properly motivated letter – in particular those that dropped out after the council discussion

4.Send out a press release highlighting the qualities of the selected candidates and how they complement each other. Also underline their commitment to reach out to the whole ccTLD community in that same message.

I understand the time pressure and the difficulties created by the need to build the process along the way, but we can do better than this.

Regards,

Peter

*From:*owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Bart Boswinkel *Sent:* donderdag 18 september 2014 14:26 *To:* ccnso-council@icann.org *Cc:* ccnsosecretariat@icann.org *Subject:* [ccnso-council] Re: IANA Stewardship Transition Process: Selection and and appointment of ccTLKD members on CWG *Importance:* High

Dear all,

Friendly reminder to the Councillors who will participate in the selection process to send you list of top 5 candidates. If you have not send the list of your preferred candidates yet, please send it directly to the sectretariat: ccnsosecretariat@icann.org <mailto:ccnsosecretariat@icann.org>

Thank you and kind regards,

Bart

*From: *Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org <mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> *Date: *Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 12:40 PM *To: *"ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>" <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> *Subject: *IANA Stewardship Transition Process: Selection and and appointment of ccTLKD members on CWG

Dear all,

Please find included proposed process and selection criteria for membership of the CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal for Naming related Function.

Please let us know if you have any questions relating to the proposal as soon as possible.

Kind regards,

Bart

*Selection Criteria and Process ccTLD members*

*CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal for Naming Related Function.*

**

*Introduction*

At it’s meeting on 21 August, the ccNSO Council adopted the charter of the Cross-Community Working Group re IANA Stewardship Transition process. As requested, the secretariat sent out a call for membership.

At the same meeting, the Council agreed it would select the ccTLD members on the Cross-community working group at its next meeting, 25 September 2014. It was also noted that the selection process and criteria still needed to be defined.

*Selection Criteria*

It is suggested to use the following criteria, based upon the call for volunteers. Candidates are expected to:

·Have a thorough understanding of operating requirements of a ccTLD manager;

·Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on an ongoing and long-term basis;

·Solicit and communicate the views and concerns of individuals from the ccTLD community, where appropriate; and

·Demonstrate effective communication skills to represent ccTLD interests on the CWG and to keep the ccNSO and broader ccTLD community abreast of the state of play in the working group.

Further, and again according to the call for nominations, the Council will take into account the diversity of the ccTLD community, including its geographical diversity.

*Process*

The call for nominations closes today, 11 September, at 23.59 UTC and all candidates are listed at: https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/ccNSO+Selection+Process+for+C...

As at least one of the Councilors volunteered as member of the CWG. Councilor(s) who have put their name forward will be excused from the selection process.

After closure of the call for volunteers, the secretariat will send the nomination letters to Councilors individually (i.e. not using the council list). If a Councilor wants to be excused from participating in the selection process, please let the secretariat know as soon as possible.

The Councilors who will participate in the selection process are requested to compile a list of their top 5 candidates, based on the criteria above, and send their list to the secretariat by 23 September 2014, 23.59 UTC, copying Keith Davidson and Katrina Sataki, the vice-chairs of the Council, to ensure the process is followed by the secretariat.

Based on the individual Councilor rankings of the candidates, the secretariat will prepare a list of the top 7 candidates and reports to the Council on 24 September.

After closure of the regular meeting on 25 September, the Council will select the five (5) members on the CWG.

The secretariat will prepare a selection report on 26 September, to be signed off by the Chair and Vice-chairs of the Council and to be published on the ccNSO website.

--