GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) meeting Monday 27 Jan 2025
Pedro de Perdigão Lana
pedrodeperdigaolana at GMAIL.COM
Mon Feb 10 05:59:43 EET 2025
I noticed the previous message also had some gaps and the last metaphor
could create some extra confusion, so I'll bring here a more detailed
explanation given in private that may be helpful in understanding this
mechanism:
Let's say we are selecting someone to be a mentor for the NextGen program.
> However, an SSC member has reasons to believe that a candidate was involved
> in a few recent cases of sexual harassment. The SSC member is not sure
> about it, because it could be only hearsay, but he/she would like to
> confirm if this is a problem or not. He/she then asks the staff to consult
> with the Ombudsperson, who can then flag, based on the work already
> developed by the Ombuds office (no further search to be made), that the
> person may be inadequate to fill that role, without disclosing the details.
>
> This kind of interaction with the Ombuds office can not currently be made,
> as explained in a recent SSC meeting. This means that either an SSC member
> would raise an objection without solid substantiation or wouldn't raise any
> objection at all about (what seems to me to be) a really important aspect
> of the selection process. One should note, however, that, as said before,
> this is maybe something that can't be made at all for confidentiality
> reasons, but that is something that would be verified by Legal.
>
>
Please let me know of other concerns or things that you already identify as
possible barriers (or ways to improve this idea).
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 seg., 10 de fev. de 2025 às 04:59, Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> escreveu:
> 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/20250210/2c3b39fa/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list