comments-draft-final-report-ccnso2-17jun19

Download

comments-draft-final-report-ccnso2-17jun19@icann.org

2 discussions

[Comments-draft-final-report-ccnso2-17jun19] Business Constituency (BC) support for Draft Report of the ccNSO Review
by Steve DelBianco Aug. 4, 2019

Aug. 4, 2019

The ICANN Business Constituency (BC) supports the Draft Final Report and recommendations of the Second ccNSO Review (ccNSO2). This regards the public comment page at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-final-report-ccnso2-2019-06-17-… -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)

1 0

[Comments-draft-final-report-ccnso2-17jun19] ccNSO Council Statement on the Draft Final Report (ccNSO2)
by Katrina Sataki July 25, 2019

July 25, 2019

ccNSO Council Statement: Draft Final Report of the Second Country Code Names Supporting Organisation Review (ccNSO2) Date: 24 July 2019 The ccNSO Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the draft final report of the Second ccNSO Organisation Review. Please note that comments from the ccNSO Council do not reflect the views of the ccNSO as a whole, nor of individual ccNSO members. The ccNSO Council appreciates the work of the Meridian Institute and the way they engaged positively and constructively with the ccTLD community. The ccNSO Council is grateful to all those who participated in this exercise and provided constructive feedback and suggestions for further improving the way the ccNSO and the ccNSO Council serve the ccTLD community. With reference to the 14 draft recommendations, and looking forward to the practicalities and timing of implementing them, the ccNSO Council would find it very helpful if the Meridian Institute could indicate the top 3 recommendations to take forward in terms of urgency and priority. Furthermore, the ccNSO Council suggests that in the next, final version of the report, the proposed recommendations could be updated to reflect existing implementation work. For example, as the Meridian Institute already noted, the matters identified in recommendation 4 (membership of the IFRT) is on its way of being implemented, but that is a complex and lengthy process given its nature as a fundamental Bylaws change. In order to ensure a proper follow up of the recommendations, the ccNSO Council would like to receive guidance about who should be responsible for it, the whole of the ccNSO (members and the Council), the ccNSO Council, a Working Group or Committee, or another entity. While this important element is clear for some recommendations, we fail to find it in others (for example, see recommendation 8). On behalf of the ccNSO Council, Katrina Sataki Chair

1 0