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

[Johan Helsingius]

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
>