[PC-NCSG] Selection Standard Committee meeting

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the heads-up on this. At the top of my head, it seems to me that Constituency appointments to the selection committee may be counter-productive (at least from an NCSG perspective). It sets up a rule that restricts the NCSG?s ability to make appointments as it sees fit. This committee is too important IMHO for us to operate under that restriction. I don?t believe that our selected appointees to the committee should be biased to one constituency over the other in their decisions, but should certainly have the necessary leeway to appoint RT members based on how they predict applicants will contribute to RTs constructively. I would hope that our own ability to select committee members would reflect this as well.

I do have one question though. Having expressed my thoughts on this, is it predicted that the selection committee will approach appointments to all RTs in a similar method? I ask because the RT working on structural reviews of the GNSO needs to be populated differently from other RTs. While we have constituencies, it would make sense to me that membership in that RT includes SG and C representation. This however, is not true of other RTs, nor do I believe is it desirable for the selection committee either.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:46 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at TOAST.NET> wrote:
> 
> Hi everybody,
>  
> ?I wanted to keep everyone in the loop about progress with the small group of Councillors trying to put together a standard selection process for future GNSO appointments.
>  
> The group, consisting of James Bladel, Donna Austin, Heather Forrest, Susan Kawaguchi and myself, met tonight for the first time since the SSR selection. We went through the appointments policy Susan and I had proposed and, in general terms, came up with some proposed  tweaks and changes based upon our experiences with the SSR selection process. Staff will be incorporating aspects of our conversation into our document and the group will meet again early next week to move things along.
>  
> I should note that one of the areas of the proposal that I expect will be brought before the full Council for consideration will be the composition of the selection teams. We'll continue to discuss optimum size and diversity within the small group, but it is my sense that the Stakeholder Group versus Constituency basis of representation discussion will once again be brought before the full Council for consideration. 
>  
> Nothing needs to be done at the moment - I just wanted to let the PC and my fellow Councillors know we continue to work on finalising a proposal. As we hope this procedural structure will outlast all of us we're committed to doing it right the first time for all time so are taking a more considered approach. I'm not sure we'll be ready with a final proposal before the next set of appointments so we may have to engage with an ad hoc appointment process one last time.  We'll have an update for the full Council at the February meeting and if anything of consequence happens before then I'll be sure to let everybody know. 
>  
> Congratulations, once again, to James Gannon and Rao Naveed Bin Rais for obtaining GNSO endorsements for the SSR Review Team. We won't always get 100% of our applicants chosen for external GNSO appointments, but with a fair, equitable and transparent process I'm confident that the talent of our member volunteers will be recognised and tapped by the GNSO for future appointments for years to come.
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Ed Morris 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1356 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170201/fa48eb6d/attachment.p7s>