On behalf of TWNIC, I would like to submit the
following comments for your references. TWNIC appreciates that the ERC adopts most
of the recommendations produced by the ccNSO AG, and we will be supportive and contribute
to the success of the ccNSO.
1.
In "Description" --Can the ERC clarify that why this 22-April-2003 document shall be viewed
in the ccNSO's second year of operation?
2.
In "ccNSO Council" --It was resolved in the ccTLD Rio meeting that a "balanced contribution to the membership of the Nominating Committee" if ccNSO accepted 3
council members put forward by the NomCom. However we did not find any
statement or commitment here.
3.
In "Transition" Suggested approach stated in the document is inappropriate. It
is "difficult" to have LG setting the rule of council election and then the
members of the LG can be elected as the council member. We do not expect that ccTLD
managers will accept this method if the election is to be held this way (a
close-loop process, one may say). We suggest that the five regional ccTLD
organizations, meaning AFTLD, APTLD, CENTR, LACTLD, and NATLD, shall be jointly
responsible for the duty of LG. The representatives sent by those organizations
(3 from each region) shall not be entitled to stand for election this time.
This LG shall also work on ccNSO¡¦s membership recruitment. Furthermore, the LG
shall open up a discussion forum for formulating the rule of council to ensure
that the bottom-up process of the ccTLD community carries on. The funding of
the LG can be allocated to those five organizations plus ICANN.
