Councilors - For discussion during our next (17 DEC) meeting, please find a motion to submit a list (TBD) of CCT-RT applicants who have sought GNSO endorsement. The Motion itself is attached and copied below. Once adopted, this motion instructs the Secretariat and Chair to inform the CCT-RT Selectors of our endorsed applicants, and highlight the interests of the GNSO on this topic, and emphasize the need for balanced representation by all GNSO stakeholders on this Review Team. Further, it informs the applicants that, if selected, they are expected to represent the GNSO in its entirety, and report back on a regular basis during the course of the Review. Finally, it asks the Secretariat to respond to any applicants who were not endorsed (if any), thanking them for their interest and encouraging them to stay engaged in this important work. Hoping for a second to this motion prior to our call the 17th. Regarding the Endorsement Process: There seem to be two general proposals emerging from the discussion on the list. One approach would simply endorse/not endorse each individual candidate, and submit the list to the Selectors. This has the benefit of keeping the focus on individual applicants seeking endorsement, and doesn’t put SGs in the position of choosing. The risk is that it shifts this choice to the Selectors, who may decide on a much smaller number of applicants, leaving some SGs unhappy with the final composition of the RT. It also diminishes the value & weight of GNSO endorsement, if a large number of GNSO-endorsed applicants are not selected. The other approach would allocate 0-2 endorsements to each SG, and then submit the (presumably smaller) aggregated list. It will take longer and could become contentious for any SGs that have received a large number of candidate submissions. But would preserve the weight of our endorsement and ensure that all SG positions are represented in the GNSO list. I propose a compromise/hybrid approach, whereby we take a “first pass” at the list of applicants using the first method, and examine the resulting list. Presumably it would be larger group of applicants, but some might receive multiple endorsements, creating a degree of overlap. We can then discuss this list during our meeting on the 17th, and either (a) add additional names for missing SGs and/or (b) work together to improve the balance of the list. For reference, I would refer you to the list of folks seeking GNSO Endorsement: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoaocreview/CCT+Review+GNSO+Candidate+... Note that all applicants have been asked to provide GNSO-specific information, and have until the end of the day today (7 DEC) to respond. I would ask Councilors & SGs to consider only those applicants who have responded to be edible for endorsement. Please post your “first pass” list of endorsed applicants to the Council list by next Monday (14 DEC 2015). Thank you, J. ________________________________ Motion on the endorsement of GNSO Applicants for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (CCT) Whereas, 1. Under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-...>, ICANN launched a process to review the extent to which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT Review). This AoC mandated review will also assess the effectiveness of the application and evaluation processes, as well as the safeguards put in place by ICANN to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion of new gTLDs. 2. To conduct this review, a Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team will be formed in late 2015. Once formed, the Review Team will independently plan its work and schedule. 3. A call for volunteers was launched on 1 October 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en). Those applying to serve as a volunteer member, where asked to identify the name of the Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee they wish to represent. 26 applicants identified the GNSO as the Supporting Organization they wished to represent (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw). 4. Following its meeting on 19 November 2015, the GNSO Council agreed to follow up with all 26 applicants to request additional information required to reach its decision on endorsement (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17695.html). 5. The GNSO Council has reviewed the information received from the applicants requesting GNSO endorsement (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw). Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council endorses the following applicants: [TBC] and expects the selectors for this Review Team to weigh this endorsement as an important factor in their selection process. 2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat, on behalf of the GNSO Council and Chair, to inform the CCT selectors in writing of the outcome of this process. The selectors should also be advised to consider the specific consideration to the role of the GNSO regarding the New gTLD implementation and ensure that all relevant GNSO stakeholders shall be represented on the CCT RT. 3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the applicants that have received endorsement that the GNSO Council expects that, if selected for the CCT, the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in their work on the CCT, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the CCT, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team Members. 4. The GNSO Council instructs the Secretariat to send a response to those applicants who did not receive endorsement (if any), thanking them for their interest. The response should also encourage them to follow the CCT RT work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions.