Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
The Country-Code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Council welcomes the opportunity to provide a response and input to the proposed Bylaws Amendments and Documents to Implement the NomCom2 Review. This response and input reflects the views of the ccNSO (Council) and was adopted as such in accordance with the Guideline: ccNSO Statements (https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_47783/guidelines-statements-30mar16-en.pdf)
* On the introduction of “Unaffiliated” Directors (Section 7.2 & 7.4): We suggest that to give direction to NomCom on the nomination of independent directors a section will be introduced in the Nominating Committee Operating Procedures to provide guidance to the Nomcom on appointment of directors. This would in our view not require a specific condition in the Bylaws to appoint at least a limited number of the category of “unaffiliated” Directors.
* On transforming all NomCom delegates into voting delegates (section 8.2): The ccNSO Council believes that the proposed amendment should be introduced only if there is a clear support for the change of role by the relevant Advisory Committee (GAC, SSAC, RSSAC).
* On change of Terms on NomCom appointee (section 8.3): The ccNSO is generally supportive of the proposed extension of the term of the appointee to the NomCom. However the Council believes that it should be up to the appointing organizations, whether they allow the appointee to serve two consecutive terms or with a minimum of two years between the end of their first term and the beginning of the second term.
* On the inclusion of the NomCom Standing Committee (section 8.7): The ccNSO Council appreciates the suggestion to create a body that will ensure greater continuity and alleviate the burden on NomCom and the already tight timelines. This being said the Council also believes that this would be better achieved by starting with a light-weight structure with a more focused mandate.
* On the change to Section 12.2 : The ccNSO Council reluctantly expresses some concern about the proposed change. By removing the appointment by the Board, with no other mechanism in place, it is unclear to us (and we assume to the wider community as well) who is eligible to become part of RSSAC and how? We appreciate that RSSAC is changing and these changes will be reflected in the Bylaws in time.