[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Standing Selection Committee
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Feb 9 23:30:27 EET 2017
Perhaps one way to slice this pie would be to have each SG send one, and
formally have each of the constituencies have a rotating rep on the
cttee....that way CSG have a mini board of 3 reps, and they fight it out
amongst themselves as to which rep goes forward for each selection. It
aint perfect, but neither is our structure, and I agree with Ed, we
cannot have the CSG having 3 votes when the Rrsg only has one....
Stephanie
On 2017-02-09 16:21, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi Rafik,
> Thanks for this. Two major issues:
> 1. One is the usual Constituency versus Stakeholder Group debate.
> Who should be on the Selection Committee? There was consensus that the
> GNSO Council Chairs and Vice Chairs should be on the Committee. Then
> we differed.
> One view, which was the majority, opined that each Constituency should
> be represented. This view was supported by Susan Kawaguchi of the BC
> and Heather Forrest of the IPC. Under this system the CSG would have 3
> reps, the NCSG 2, the RySG and RrSG 1 each, along with the Council
> Chair and Vice Chairs. The reps themselves would be appointed by the
> Constituencies on the NCPH side.
> My view was we should honor the GNSO structure and have 1 rep from
> each of the Stakeholder Groups along with the leadership team. Under
> this system the CSG, NCSG, RySG and RrSg would each have 1 rep who
> would serve alongside the leadership team.
> The full Council has been delegated to decide which option to chose.
> The SSR was a learning experience for me. This was the most difficult
> and time consuming activity I've done at ICANN. Not to say I didn't
> value it - it probably fits my skill set better than other things I've
> done here and I'm happy with the outcome from a NCSG perspective - but
> I just don't see a large group being very effective doing the initial
> vetting. Everyone on the team needs to be committed to doing the
> substantial and detailed work and I believe that's more likely to
> happen with a smaller group.
> For reasons of equitable representation and the utility of smaller
> groups I certainly would encourage support for the SG option. In fact,
> I think it is absolutely essential from a NCSG perspective.
> 2. The initial proposal made by Susan and myself included a rotation
> system for appointees. This consisted of two parts:
> 1. For review teams, the top three endorsees should be from three
> separate SG's (assuming a sufficient number of applications), and
> 2. For review teams, the SG that did not have candidate endorsed in
> the top three (which are guaranteed appointments) would, by right,
> have a candidate endorsed for the next DT in one of the top three places.
> This was changed by staff into a general diversity requirement and was
> approved by the Committee at a meeting with 40 per cent attendance.
> There was conversation about weakening the requirement somewhat in the
> previous meeting but I did not expect anything like this.
> I believe this requirement to be fundamental and essential. NCSG
> candidates often have skill sets a bit different than others. In the
> SSR2 RT the GNSO endorsed James as a guaranteed SSR2 member and Naveed
> as someone we would propose for further consideration. If we strictly
> applied the skill set contained in the Call for Application neither
> would have been selected.
> In fact, staff included neither of our candidates in their top seven
> ranking. Both, IMHO, would be excellent SSR2 members but James was
> perceived to lack specific desirable educational attributes and
> Naveed, a man with impeccable academic qualifications, had no direct
> experience in "corporate security".
> We're the NCSG. Many of our members lack corporate anything. If that,
> and other requirements favouring industry professionals, are going to
> be a strict requirements for other RT's and the SG rotation is
> eliminated our Members may have some difficulty being selected. I
> believe a strong rotation is in the interest of both the NCSG and the
> GNSO.
> I'll be very happy to talk about all of this on the call tomorrow. I
> believe in an inclusive GNSO, one that recognises the diversity of the
> SO and guarantees all a place at the table for all SG's on these
> important RT's.
> Susan and I have agreed to meet in Reykjavik with the goal of jointly
> drafting language that would reinstate in some form the rotation
> concept, and posting it to the Council list prior to the
> Council meeting on the 16th, so the matter may be considered by the
> entire Council.
> Kind Regards,
> Ed Morris
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 11:54 AM
> *To*: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Standing Selection Committee
> Dear Ed,
> Thanks for sharing this and raising your concerns. I think the
> selection process is definitely a topic for discussion at the policy call.
> can you list quickly the concerns you have prior to the call? I think
> some changes are editorial but I saw that several paragraphs on page 6
> and 7 were removed which are related to decision making.
> Best,
> Rafik
> 2017-02-07 13:20 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
>
> Hi everybody,
> I hope we can discuss this on our policy committee call later this
> week and in other meetings before our February 16th Council call.
> The Standing Selection Committee met tonight in reduced fashion:
> due to technical problems and conflicting commitments only two of
> the five team members attended the entire call. Changes, based
> upon staff recommendations, have been made to the initial proposal
> and I don't believe these changes are in the interest of the NCSG.
> Hopefully we'll have time to talk about things and come out with a
> common position going forward.
> Overall I think this is a good proposal but we do have work to do
> on the full Council. I look forward to discussing things with
> everyone, particularly my fellow Councillors, on Friday.
> Best,
> Ed Morris
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>> *From:* Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com <mailto:susank at fb.com>>
>> *Date:* 7 February 2017 at 03:17:30 GMT
>> *To:* GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org
>> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>> *Subject:* *[council] Standing Selection Committee*
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Please see the attached draft charter for the proposed Standing
>> Selection Committee. This committee would be composed of
>> councilors to select candidates for review teams and other positions.
>>
>> We will discuss next week at the council meeting.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Susan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> council mailing list
>> council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170209/e00e5c66/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list