[Consultation] Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

What I find strange is that by accepting the ccNSO proposal, we'll have a
team that doesn't meet ICANN bylaws' requirements, performing a review in
accordance with a scope specified in the ICANN Bylaws.

I couldn't find the rationale behind the requirement of a third ccNSO
representative not being a ccNSO ccTLD member, but I am of the opinion that
if the membership of the IFR team doesn't respect the bylaws requirements,
the credibility of their output might be undermined in the community.

Cheers,
Tomslin


On Thu., 10 Jan. 2019, 00:11 Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com wrote:

> I fully agree on this stand. It does not solve the immediate situation but
> do we always have someone immediately? Day after day I see Icann going into
> what I cannot imagine. Although things have started going way south some
> time back but I stand with ``James on this stand we need to be strong and
> not permit people playing around. If so why was a bylaws even put in place.
> We may as well be Mickey Mouse all the way through. Things are serious and
> we have to push for a respectful and strong stand and not play on this
> game. Next time another story will come up. It is a time to put stops and
> as we say checks and balances are important and it Becomes easy to play
> when you create precedence.
>
> We all know what happens once precedence happens we play it on and on.
> That is my thinking process. I rarely state my mind and thoughts being
> pointed fingers but we need to stop those plays please and respect what is
> laid down.
>
> `````else we do another shutdown for an imaginary wall
>
>
> Kris Seeburn
> seeburn.k at gmail.com
>
> linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
>
> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
>
>
> On 9 Jan 2019, at 16:35, James Gannon <james at CYBERINVASION.NET> wrote:
>
> This is an important message, and we need to take a very strong stand here
> that the bylaws must be implemented as written, the ccNSO needs to fulfil
> its bylaws mandate and staff the IFR correctly.
> We cannot continue to undermine the accountability mechanisms we created
> and agreed to during the IANA strwardship as we already have done with the
> AoC reviews. I hope this can be passed along to our councillors.
>
> On 9 Jan 2019, at 13:19, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am sharing here a communication sent by ICANN GDD asking from community
> input regarding 2 issues raised with the IANA Naming Function Review Team
> formation. More details about the 2 issues are in the attached documents.
> looking forward to hear from you if there is any issue with the proposed
> options. In particular, those who were involved in the IANA Stewardship
> transition CWG may give some insights here.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Drazek, Keith via council
> Date: mar. 8 janv. 2019 à 08:15
> Subject: [council] FW: Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues
> To:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Please see the attached request from ICANN for community input on two
> membership appointment issues currently facing the IANA Naming Functions
> Review Team – one related to a geographical diversity requirement, and the
> other a ccTLD-facing representation concern. Both issues are in play due to
> the new ICANN bylaws language and requirements related to the IFRT, so
> please review and advise if your SGs and Cs have views on a reasonable path
> forward.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Trang Nguyen
> *Sent:* Monday, January 07, 2019 11:55 AM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues
>
>
>
> Dear Chairs, Co-Chairs, and Executive Committee,
>
>
>
> Please see attached letter regarding two issues with the IANA Naming
> Function Review Team that we are requesting your organization help address.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Trang Nguyen
>
> Vice President, GDD Strategic Programs
>
> ICANN
>
>
>
>
> <ccNSO_IFRT letter to appointing orgs[1].pdf><IFR Issues Resolution
> Request.pdf>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190109/ce75b21a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 51490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190109/ce75b21a/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: linkedin3.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 973 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190109/ce75b21a/attachment.jpeg>