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

[Pascal Bekono]

Dear Pedro,

Thank you for reporting this concern. With my experience as a NCUC delegate
to Nomcom and a member of the recommendation subcommittee, I will suggest
that SSC members can gather all the improvements. From the selection
process to the announcement of the results. Because you are the one who
faces some challenges throughout the selection process. And we can discuss
it with the community.

Also, in NOMCOM, we've never had a debate concerning the Ombudsman (we
should avoid this). There are selection criterias for each position, and a
suggestion can be to add information in the questionnaire or go for an
interview if you are looking for more information regarding a candidate.

It can also be interesting to have an alternate, in case of conflict with
the selected candidate.

So, it's a voting process, after doing thorough research on a candidate,
with your own unbiased judgment, you proceed to a vote,YES or NO. And the
majority vote wins. So members are responsible for their choice, and the
collaboration of the Ombudsman is not necessary.
thanks,

best regards,

Le lun. 10 févr. 2025 à 12:00, Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> a écrit :

> 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/20250215/e4fce5d4/attachment.htm>