[PC-NCSG] Appointments Policy

Wed Dec 14 14:44:45 EET 2016

Hi Rafik,

 Thanks for the questions. Much appreciated.

   - can you please give more clarification about the idea of rotation and what is the rationale behind that? any specific use case?the SG don't have a guarantee to get one of their nominees to be selected for RT?

 Sure.

 For Review Teams the GNSO can nominate at first go seven individuals but only the top three are guaranteed a spot on the Review Team. The rotation proposal is designed to guarantee that no Stakeholder Group will be shut out of the Review Teams more than once of every four opportunities . Under the proposal every Stakeholder Group will be guaranteed an applicant in the top three positions, guaranteed selection, for three of every four review team calls (provided they provide at lease one applicant).

 For other appointments the rotation is contained within the ranking itself: no Stakeholder Group shall have two candidates selected for a group until all other Stakeholder Groups (provided they submitted applications) have had at least one candidate selected.

 One of the things these rules should prevent is the ability of the individual CSG constituencies to make claims on multiple appointments due to their claimed great internal diversity. It also guarantees the NCSG equality in guaranteed appointments with the other Stakeholder Groups and should prevent stacking of nominations as happened with the recent CCT debacle.

 - for ranking and operating procedures, will the committee set for every selection process those details i.e. they can be changed every time? 

 Our goal was continuity and standardisation of the process itself while leaving flexibility for determining the criteria for selection. So while the mechanics should stay the same the Committee will have flexibility in determining the criteria for ranking and selection (which makes sense: the same skill set for CSC, for example, may be different than that needed for CCT).

 - with regard to call for applications, currently it is not managed by the council but the staff working on the reviews.

 Absolutely correct. That's why we inserted the word 'appropriately' in section 1(b). If there is a role for the Council and the Selection Committee in issuing the call it will assume that, if not it won't.

 Thanks again for the questions. If I can provide any other information or clarification please let me know. I know the proposal can and perhaps will be improved but hopefully we've gotten things off to a good start.

 Ed

 Best,

 Rafik
   2016-12-14 2:11 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:   Hello everybody,

 ?During the Council meeting in Hyderabad,  Susan Kawaguchi of the Business Constituency  and myself were tasked with the job of developing a standardised appointments procedure for the GNSO. I am pleased to report that we've completed our work and within the past hour have submitted our plan to GNSO Council Chair James Baldel. I have attached a copy of our proposal for your consideration. 

 I'm proud of what we've come up with. It is a document full of compromises but I do believe it is a proposal that protects the interests of the NCSG, NCUC and NPOC and will generate GNSO appointments of the highest quality. Among the highlights: 

 ?- A standing GNSO Selection Committee, one whose composition reflects the diversity of the GNSO, which shall serve as the coordinating body for the appointment process. 

 ?- A procedure which encourages the largest number of possible candidates from all parts of the GNSO, combined with a ranking system designed to ensure merit based selection in combination with a rotation system ensuring equal representation amongst the Stakeholder Groups for Review Team appointments. 

 ?-A comprehensive appointments procedure designed both for Review Team appointments (section II) and any other appointments (section 111) the GNSO Council may be asked to make. No more ad hoc processes. 

 -An unqualified commitment to transparency in the process. No longer will applications go into a "black box" and come out with selections made on an unknown basis from an unknown pool of candidates. Unless otherwise directed by Council, the entire appointments process will be fully open and transparent. 

 ?There was one area Susan and I were not able to come to an agreement on: the composition of the GNSO Selection Committee. I preferred a committee consisting of the GNSO Council Chair and one member selected from each Stakeholder Group. Susan preferred a committee consisting of the GNSO Council Chair and one member of each Constituency and Stakeholder Group. We agreed to put this decision to the full Council where I trust RySG and RrSG will join what I hope will be our position in supporting Stakeholder Group based appointments. 

 I regret the I will be unable to join you on the call tonight or or the full Council meeting on Thursday. As many of you know, I've asked the NCSG EC to appoint a Temporary Alternate to replace me on Council for the next few weeks. I have a few minor medical procedures I'm scheduled to undergo in hospital  and unfortunately the National Health Service has schedule them for this week and for the week of our January call. I hope to rejoin all of you as soon as I can. This leave will not impact any of my other activity in ICANN and I certainly expect to be active, as required, between the calls. 

 In he interim, I'm more than happy to answer any questions anyone may have about this proposal. I do not know when it will be scheduled for Council consideration, but I did want to let everyone know the result of our work and to give you time to consider our work. 

 Kind Regards, 

 Edward Morris   

_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/46bd722e/attachment-0001.html>