Page History
...
- Next steps: intention to have it ready for adoption by ccNSO Council early June
Recording:
NOTES:
Notes:
1. Welcome and roll-call
call can last max 1h. We need to be clear about the lasts steps and improvements that need to be made.
Next week: council call. It would be hellpful to submit the guideline beforehand, and have it approved during the next call.
Open call for volunteers around 30 June. 15 aug the CSC needs to be fully operational.
2. Brief update call with ICANN staff and Donna Austin + mail from Russ Housley (IAB on .ARPA)
calls with Donna and Paul from RySG. We first need to consult with RySG, then with GNSO to approve the full slate. Diversity needs to be ensured, that is why we need the consultation.
3. ccNSO info on ICANN call for expressions
For ccNSO and RySG the most important concern is to select knowledgeable people. Diversity is secondary. Depends on the pool of candidates. According to the charter we are consulting with RySG before finalising the member list (before 22 July), and once all nominations are known, we consult with the GNSO Council (its sub-committee) to ensure the diversity.
.arpa does not want to nominate its member to the CSC.
4. Review latest version
1. intro & Background.
David McAuley: Wording seems odd, but was indeed part of the original proposal.
Accepted.
3.2.
1 for 2 years, 1 member for 3 years to be chosen. Not sure who will in the end be chosen for 2 or 3 years. Maybe it is someting for the council to decide.
Perhaps the number of votes could be a determining factor. But: the volunteer needs to express its availability as well for 2 or 3 years.
conflict of interest: add short parapgraph.
3.5.
overlap: each member will after the initial appointment be elected for 2 years. Initially, 1 selected for 2 years, other for 3 years, just to ensure the start-up. Every year, one member will be changed.
Guideline might need to be revised after the initial round. To be further tweaked in the future.
5.
selection criteria: only included in the Annex A.
Which terminology? Call for volunteers? Call for Expression of Interest?
Second has more the nature of an application, but both options are fine according to David. "Call for EoI" will be the one we will use.
5.1.
non-conflicted councillors.
Currently no wiki space where to list candidates, but we do have the ccNSO website. Suggestion not to be so technology-specific.
5.2.
Candidate (not) employed by a ccTLD. David raised the concern that qualified candidates might thus fall through the cracks. Martin Boyle says that we currently say "should be employed", but we could rephrase as follows: " have active backing by a ccTLD Manager." The ccTLD will keep in touch with that person.
BB: do you want to include here the travel funding? Difficult here, but it needs to be somewhere. KS:under general information? Someone please come up with a proposal.
Ranking.
5.2.3.
general timeline
By 22 July ICANN needs to be informed of the selection.
6. aproval full slate.
procedure needs to be developed: how do we consult with GNSO? It needs to be in coordination with RySG according to David.
We can indeed dismiss the full slate, but no individual candidates.
8.
tricky to keep list of volunteers. suggestion to leave this out.
I. skill set & experience.
Bart's table is shorter. It is the one that is in the announcement of the EoI from the CWG-Stewardship.
How to phrase : please specify how you meet the requirements?" Suggestion; Please explain in detail how you meet the requirements.
5. Next steps: intention to have it ready for adoption by ccNSO Council early June.
Thank you.
One more thing: the CSC is one thing, but we need another guideline for RZERC, where we need to appoint 1 member. We can base ourselves on the CSC Guideline.
RZERC is different, with respect to the requirements. Appointment procedure is easier: just 1 member, appointed by ccNSO. No consultation. Suggest to follow same structure, adjust the criteria and EoI, and simplify the selection procedure. Timelines need to be updated too.
Documents:
