[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

Tue Mar 28 00:41:48 EEST 2017

>From the proud observer

this is a sound approach Ayden. But who is going to grade them? do you have
a list of those who must grade? and if they don't what will this group do?

Farzaneh

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
wrote:

> The successful candidates should be the people who show the best ability
> against the person specification for the role. I am making such a grading
> rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to the list shortly for
> feedback and to allow others to refine it. This way we can objectively
> grade the candidates without decisions being made on the basis of snap
> judgements, halo or horn effects, mirroring, personalities rather than
> abilities, information provided informally, etc. There are only five
> candidates so it shouldn't take any of us too long to grade them once the
> rubric is ready, which will be tonight. And the three candidates with the
> highest scores should be our representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have
> any hesitations regarding taking this approach?
>
> - Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
> Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
> From: mshears at cdt.org
> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>
> Hi all
>
> I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective thinking.
>
> Where we are at the moment:
>
> We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.
>
> There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
> along to little avail and to some criticism.
>
> There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of three
> for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because they
> are candidates and 1 for process concerns.
>
> We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
> experience and representativeness including of constituencies
>
> Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
> today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.
>
> The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 30th.
>
> I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to move
> this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
> > email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
> > this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
> >
> > I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
> > discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
> > publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
> > able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
> > if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
> >
> > In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
> > this and I trust he gets it done in time.
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
> wrote:
> >
> >> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place
> >> without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who are
> not
> >> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we were
> >> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
> >>
> >> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments
> based
> >> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
> >>
> >> SP
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> >>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
> >>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
> >>>
> >>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
> >>> transcribed?
> >>>
> >>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
> >>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
> >>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
> >>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
> >>>
> >>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
> >>> that already.
> >>>
> >>> As for the qualifications, two points:
> >>>
> >>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
> >>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
> >>> we can do whatever we like.
> >>>
> >>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
> >>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
> >>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
> >>> on her or his plate already.
> >>>
> >>> Tapani
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks, Steph.
> >>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie
> Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> >>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
> >>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> >>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
> >>>>
> >>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying
> characteristics we are looking for might be?
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that
> actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue about how
> we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.
> >>>>
> >>>> SP
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> >>>> Hi
> >>>>
> >>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
> >>>>
> >>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including
> of constituencies as criteria.
> >>>>
> >>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to
> discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.
> If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred
> trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other suggestions are welcome.
> >>>>
> >>>> Matthew
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> >>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
> >>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
> >>>>
> >>>> cheers Stephanie
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Ayden,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
> >>>>
> >>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
> >>>>
> >>>> represented.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
> >>>>
> >>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Tapani
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden Férdeline (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:ic
> ann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those
> of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
> representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope
> our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the
> ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a
> newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the
> same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and
> representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from
> different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect
> metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> - Ayden
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
> ><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday
> and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should
> add her candidacy to the mix.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now
> with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach
> works.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the
> selection process. Thoughts welcome.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Matthew
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:
> ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> >>>>
> >>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee -
> URGENT
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear all,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
> >>>>
> >>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
> >>>>
> >>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
> >>>>
> >>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
> >>>>
> >>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Tapani Tarvainen
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear All,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> >>>>
> >>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) – see
> >>>>
> >>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-
> selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.
> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_
> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=
> FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_
> FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-
> JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4
> Fnvcy4&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-
> 2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6
> sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_
> uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> >>>>
> >>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> >>>>
> >>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> >>>>
> >>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> >>>>
> >>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> >>>>
> >>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> >>>>
> >>>> interested parties.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted
> Party House;
> >>>>
> >>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> >>>>
> >>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group;
> and,
> >>>>
> >>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to
> the GNSO Council.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> >>>>
> >>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> >>>>
> >>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> >>>>
> >>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> >>>>
> >>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> >>>>
> >>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> >>>>
> >>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> >>>>
> >>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> >>>>
> >>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto:
> [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gn
> so-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> by 27 March at the
> >>>>
> >>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> >>>>
> >>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Marika Konings
> >>>>
> >>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> >>>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-PC mailing list
> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > http://www.avg.com
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> 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/20170327/aaefec1d/attachment.htm>