[DTC CSC] Member/Liaison definitions

[Donna Austin]

Hi All

I'm working through the comments and I think it might be safe to use language for Liaisons contained in the ICANN bylaws for the ccNSO and GNSO

2. There shall also be one liaison to the ccNSO Council from each of the following organizations, to the extent they choose to appoint such a liaison: (a) the Governmental Advisory Committee; (b) the At-Large Advisory Committee; and (c) each of the Regional Organizations described in Section 5 of this Article<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#IX-5>. These liaisons shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the ccNSO Council, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the ccNSO Council. Appointments of liaisons shall be made by providing written notice to the ICANN Secretary, with a notification copy to the ccNSO Council Chair, and shall be for the term designated by the appointing organization as stated in the written notice. The appointing organization may recall from office or replace its liaison at any time by providing written notice of the recall or replacement to the ICANN Secretary, with a notification copy to the ccNSO Council Chair.

Which is also similar to the GNSO
There may also be liaisons to the GNSO Council from other ICANN Supporting Organizations and/orAdvisory Committees, from time to time. The appointing organization shall designate, revoke, or change its liaison on the GNSO Council by providing written notice to the Chair of the GNSO Council and to theICANN Secretary. Liaisons shall not be members of or entitled to vote, to make or second motions, or to serve as an officer on the GNSO Council, but otherwise liaisons shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the GNSO Council.

There is one caution that I have with regard to this. Our members will be outnumbered by Liaisons by 4 to 5, so if Liaisons are participating on equal footing it could get tricky.

As RSSAC is a direct customer perhaps we elevate them to 'member', and similarly for the RIRs which offered a Liaison through the public comment.

Sorry for the curve ball, but I'd appreciate any thoughts any of you might have.

Thanks

Donna


From: dt3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Sunday, 31 May 2015 9:25 AM
To: dt3 at icann.org
Subject: [DTC CSC] Public Comment 222

I have a lot of empathy for these (Google's) comments.  (My one minor reservation is on "(3) raising and addressing any persistent performance deficiencies related to naming" which I think is an over-simplified description of what we suggest.  We argued that the CSC's role was to seek remedial action in the case of service failure.  However, the CSC should not be substituting itself for the IANA functions operator, so it is not of itself addressing, but requesting the PTI to improve its performance.)

The role of the liaisons does need to be addressed and I would agree with the comment that this needs to be done now.

How about:


*         We agree that the role of the liaisons in the CSC does need to be defined.  We believe that this should be to ensure communications between the work of the CSC and the wider stakeholder community.  In particular, the liaisons should:

o   Raise with the CSC any concerns that have been identified by their community and help address those concerns;

o   Ensure distribution of reports from the PTI and the CSC to their community;

o   Help organise the regular meetings between the PTI and/or CSC with the wider community.

What do others think?

The other points raised by Google I think reinforce points made by DT-C, so can simply be welcomed and agreed.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/attachments/20150603/4c6ba8b8/attachment.html>