<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=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (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.E-postmall17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.E-postmall18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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=SV link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Martin and List<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Agree on much, however not all:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Change of Charter process<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The larger number of stakeholders that should reach consensus on charter changes, the more complicated to actually reach it. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If all of community to reach consensus, it might actually have the opposite effect. Proposal indicate a major change, and we’d need to rething the decision process within CSC. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I would not be happy in opening it to only ALAC and GAC. If that’s the case, we’d need to open it to all of community. This is then a challenge to all of CSC decision mechansims, i.e. opening up a lot of doors. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Maybe we could propose change of CSC charter through a really wide community process, i.e. ICANN?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Staffan<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b>Från:</b> dt3-bounces@icann.org [mailto:dt3-bounces@icann.org] <b>För </b>Martin Boyle<br><b>Skickat:</b> den 31 maj 2015 19:34<br><b>Till:</b> dt3@icann.org<br><b>Ämne:</b> [DTC CSC] Public Comments 354 & 355<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>“… 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></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><span lang=EN-GB>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></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>“… 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></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><span lang=EN-GB>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></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Staggered appointments<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><span lang=EN-GB>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></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Charter and review processes<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><span lang=EN-GB>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></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>IPC concerns<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><span lang=EN-GB>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></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><span lang=EN-GB>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></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>That’s the lot, folks!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Martin <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>