<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">“… the concept of a unaffiliated registry being allowed to be a Liaison does make sense as Liaisons are from groups that are explicitly not registries.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">There is no reason why a brand registry also a member of the IPC could not be a liaison. Similarly, it is quite possible that a GAC representative might be from a government operated ccTLD or even that an ALAC
member might be a registry operator. Hence the wording: we do not think it appropriate to limit the selection of liaisons by their stakeholder group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“… members and liaisons “will be appointed by their respective communities in accordance with internal processes”, but also that “the full membership of the CSC must be approved by the ccNSO and the GNSO”.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">I generally agree that it would not be appropriate for the ccNSO and GNSO RySG to veto proposed liaisons. But there is probably some need for final approval – it would not be reasonable for there to be two people
from the same country or even the same organisation (whether members or liaisons). But it is not expected that the ccNSO and GNSO RySG would make a unilateral decision, but could be expected to discuss liaisons with the groups providing liaisons<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Staggered appointments<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">I have some sympathy here, but there might be reasons why one would not want the same liaison to remain in place ad infinitum. Perhaps we could suggest that it would be up to those proposing a liaison to set
term rules as part of their nomination process, recognising that some rotation is normal good practice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Charter and review processes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">I would have no problems widening to include ALAC and the GAC. (Actually I’d welcome this as the GNSO has too strong a say in the various mechanisms – it has the unfortunate knack of looking at everything as
though it were a gTLD issue.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">IPC concerns<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">These have already been discussed. Membership should be related to the role of the CSC and not simply be another forum for sounding out about problems not related to IANA functions operator performance. I fail
to understand any IPC representation need here and hardly see them as being marginalised. The point seems to be widening the role of the CSC – and I for one would be opposed to this. (And see above for my continued concerns/irritation of the heavy GNSO engagement
in all of these proposed structures!)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">I leave it to someone more tactful and less irritable on this issue than I to word the response more diplomatically!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That’s the lot, folks!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Martin <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>