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

[Pedro de Perdigão Lana]

Hi Raymond!

Sorry if I wasn’t clear - it’s not inviting the ombusdperson to participate
in the process, but having a mechanism that would allow for  ICANN staff to
ask her, without opening up details about the content of the complaints, to
flag potential issues regarding the candidates.

The example you provided is from a distinct nature of the situation I’m
referring to. The ombudsperson consultation is not about the overall merit
of the candidate or achieving consensus, but regarding the scope of that
office, involving situations that the SSC members may not know about, or
even situations that can not be exposed publicly in the SSC debate (i.e.,
these are non-negotiable aspects, or at least, they shouldn’t be - to
provide a concrete example of what was in my mind, someone who has a
background of sexual harassments shouldn’t be selected by the community to
guide people having their first experience within ICANN). It would be
similar, *mutatis mutandis*, to a background check about the existence of a
Conflict of Interest related to a non-public connection that the person has.

Cordially,

*Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Advogado - OAB/PR 90.600 <https://www.nic.br/>,  Pesquisador (GEDAI/UFPR
<https://www.gedai.com.br/>)
Doutorando em Direito (UFPR), Mestre em Direito Empresarial (UCoimbra),
Coordenação/Diretoria/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/> e CC
Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>.
Essa mensagem é restrita ao remetente e destinatário(s). Se recebida por
engano, favor responder informando o erro.


Em seg., 10 de fev. de 2025 às 04:04, Raymond Mamattah <
mamattah.raymond at gmail.com> escreveu:

> Hello Pedro,
>
> Could you please clarify what you meant by involving the Ombudsman in the
> selection process? Because the role of the Ombudsman is for resolving
> potential issues reported to that office.
>
> With regards to your statement "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."
>
> In the selection process when rating and ranking candidates, there's a
> column to provide comments. This allows for the SSC members to state any
> reservations they might have about any such candidates.
>
> Those of us who used to be in the SSC can testify that during the
> discussion stages a lot of considerations and consensus building
> takes place. I remember in once instance we were selecting a Co-chair for a
> WG, the Chair was from the CPH and the Co-chair we all agreed on was also
> from the CPH. However, a member of the SSC drew our attention that in order
> to have a balance the Co-chair should rather be from the NCPH. This sounded
> convincing and we all accepted this view.
>
> Personally, I will suggest as much as possible good negotiation and
> background checks by the SSC members could be done and I believe the
> Ombudsman will not really be involved in SSC affairs.
>
> Regards,
>
> Raymond Mamattah
> Accra, Ghana
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025, 12:50 AM Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
> pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/20250210/49b3cc3b/attachment.htm>