[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Standing Selection Committee

Fri Feb 10 06:10:23 EET 2017

Hi Ed,

thanks for this, it will help us for the discussion in today call and what
will be our position in the council call next week.
I want also to highlight that a selection process is coming soon with the
whois/RDS RT which is an agenda item for GNSO call.

Best,

Rafik

2017-02-10 6:21 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> 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>:
>>
>> 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>
>> *Date:* 7 February 2017 at 03:17:30 GMT
>> *To:* GNSO Council List <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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170210/9b85b236/attachment.htm>