GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) meeting Monday 27 Jan 2025

Sun Feb 9 19:49:54 EET 2025

Hi everyone,

Regarding the SSC charter, I'll be making two suggestions for a potential
change of the document, and would like to see if the community agrees with
them:

   - Considering what Julf mentioned in the last part of his report, it
   would be beneficial to have clearer rules about when individual votes would
   be open and when they wouldn't, so SSC members can raise sensitive topics
   within their reasons to vote, and reach for a proper level of
   accountability to the community at the same time.
   - I am asking for a mechanism that would give the SSC the capability to
   interact with the Ombudsperson when selecting certain positions. To be more
   precise, it seems to me that, especially in roles such as mentorships, it
   would be extremely inadequate to have someone involved in harassment
   processes get into an asymmetrical position of power with a newcomer. As
   mentioned before, I'm not sure how much this would be possible considering
   the confidentiality/privacy issues involved and their legal implications,
   but discussing this could be a good step.
      - I would, however, like to hear your considerations here (and if
      someone already had a concrete idea on how to implement this, or
something
      similar to this).

Cordially,

*Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
Researcher
PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
Coordination/Board/EC @ ISOC BR <https://isoc.org.br/>, NCUC
<https://www.ncuc.org> & NCSG
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN),
YouthLACIGF <https://youthlacigf.lat/>, IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> and CC
Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>
This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
mistake, please reply informing it.

Em ter., 28 de jan. de 2025 às 16:58, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>
escreveu:

> Thanks Pedro!
>
>         Julf
>
>
> On 28/01/2025 17:40, Pedro de Perdigão Lana wrote:
> > Thanks once again for the detailed report, Julf!
> >
> > Adding to the last part of your comment, if the community would like to
> > search for potential improvements to the current charter, this is the
> > link to the current version: https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/2.
>
> > +Charter <https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/2.+Charter>.
> >
> > Pgs. 5 and 6 (part of "Section IV: Rules of Engagement"), appear to be
> > most relevant text to be analyzed..
> >
> > Cordially,
> >
> > *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
> > Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
> > Researcher
> > PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
> > Coordination/Board/EC @ISOC BR <https://isoc.org.br/>,NCUC <https://
> > www.ncuc.org> & NCSG <https://community.icann.org/display/
> > gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN), YouthLACIGF <https://youthlacigf.lat/
> >  >,IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> and CC Brasil <https://
> > br.creativecommons.net/>
> > This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received
> > by mistake, please reply informing it.
> >
> >
> > Em ter., 28 de jan. de 2025 às 07:21, Johan Helsingius
> > <00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu
> > <mailto:00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu>> escreveu:
> >
> >     Hi again everyone,
> >
> >     It has been a busy period for the SSC, with meetings every week,
> >     but now all the appointments in the queue have been handled so
> >     the frequency of meetings should go down significantly.
> >
> >     Yesterday the topic was the Latin Diacritics PDP Working Group Chair.
> >
> >     Attendance was up, with all but 3 members (Mike Rodenbaugh (IPC),
> >     Frank Anati (NCSG) and Susan Mohr (ISPC) - Susan did submit apologies
> >     in advance) present.
> >
> >     Again, as the SSC procedures prescribe a 48-hour consensus call
> >     period allowing committee members who were not in the meeting to
> >     raise objections I can't yet announce the result, but I can say
> >     that the candidate everyone in the NCSG camp thought best suited
> >     did get chosen.
> >
> >     The way the SSC works is that an initial round is done by a 2-part
> >     poll. The first part asks SSC members to state, for each candidate,
> >     if they think the candidate satisfies the requirements for the
> >     position, and the second part asks the members to rank the
> candidates.
> >     Nominally this is just an initial poll to inform the discussion,
> >     but there has been little discussion and usually the poll results
> >     determine the choice.
> >
> >     Interestingly the SSC vice chair Segunfunmi Olajide (BC) questioned
> the
> >     mechanism and its results.
> >
> >     I did raise the issue that staff extended the poll deadline by 2
> hours
> >     at last minute after chasing members who hadn't responded. My concern
> >     is that arbitrary decisions to extend the deadline can be used to
> >     influence the result and is unfair towards members who make the
> >     effort to meet the deadline.
> >
> >     In the previous meeting I raised the question about the fact that the
> >     (anonymous) poll replies showed one member stating that the candidate
> >     at the top of the poll was not suitable, and wondered if that was a
> >     showstopper. The member who had given the answer identified
> themselves
> >     and explained that as a new member, they had answered "no" simply
> >     because that candidate wasn't one of their preferred choices, so it
> >     should not be seen as a showstopper.
> >
> >     Seems that my question was misconstrued as wanting to know who
> answered
> >     what, and to my surprise, this time the polling results and answers
> >     showed who had voted and answered what. I did raise the issue that
> >     this should not happen without the members being told in advance that
> >     that would be the case, and the Chair, Karen Day (RySG) responded
> that
> >     "the decision was made under leadership discretion to provide an
> >     additional layer of transparency and provide full context to the
> >     outcome".
> >
> >     In this case, it did give an opportunity to see that poll responses
> >     to a large degree reflected constituency/stakeholder group lines.
> >
> >     There was also some discussion about possibly requesting the
> >     Council to review the SSC charter. The current charter will be
> >     circulated to SSC members for comments.
> >
> >     So far no date has been set for the next meeting as there are
> >     no appointments pending.
> >
> >              Julf
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250209/8c018349/attachment.htm>