RE: Re: [council] ccNSO Council report

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

James,
 
The summary I posted was based on work being led by Becky Burr of Neustar.  She 
is a member of the ccNSO Council.  It was clear that not many other Councillors 
were tuned in to the issue, but the entire subject of there being no place (or 
at least not enough of one) at the table for the cc's (with regard to IANA 
transition or netMundial, for example).
 
Cheers,
 
Berard
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] ccNSO Council report
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 4/18/14 9:42 am
To: "john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 Thanks for the update, John.  Did the ccNSO have any other comments about the 
composition of the proposed “Steering Committee”?
 
During a call yesterday with ICANN Staff, I noted that allocating 2 reps from 
the GNSO was not adequate, and that the selection process must be open, 
transparent, predictable, etc.  My concern is that ICANN will “pick its jury” 
in a top-down fashion,  with the goal of steering the outcome.
 
Thanks-
 
J.
 
 
From: "john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Thursday, April 17, 2014 at 7:58 
 To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Subject: [council] ccNSO Council report
 
All,
 
Today's ccNSO Council meeting, plagued by lack of quorum, had a decided 
Internet governance focus.  In fact, the Council recently launched a quite 
useful resource page on the subject: 
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/igrg.htm
 
The IANA transition also drew attention.  It is hoped that the steering 
committee structure planned by ICANN can be expanded to allow for two specific 
representatives from the ccNSO and gTLD registry stakeholder group, selected by 
the groups themselves.  The point is that the ccNSO feels it is an "affected 
party" and should have specific input.
 
Cheers,
 
Berard