[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

Tue Mar 28 01:36:42 EEST 2017

Hi, all-

I have drafted up a short rubric which we may consider using to assess the candidates. This is still a work in progress, and I have set the Google Doc to allow anyone to edit it, to add new criteria or to revise what I have included. Nothing is set in stone at this time; it is just a first draft, so please do feel free to edit it.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ha32l6V-7EQ_IvMbdsXUqNC5Qx4hV0magRi-UlkdX0/edit?usp=sharing

We may decide this is not a useful tool at all, particularly given the fact that we do not have candidate statements to use in order to assess the candidates.

Alas, we need to make a decision soon. As Stephanie mentioned below, on the agenda for the first SSC meeting this Thursday is the RDS Review — and we need people on that call.

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
Local Time: 27 March 2017 11:07 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 22:07
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, seeburnk at gmail.com, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at GMAIL.COM>

I would tend to agree that certain aspects of personality are pretty important in group work, and this will be a difficult and probably somewhat contentious series of tasks. One might think of such personality traits as patience, diplomacy, trustworthiness, honesty, integrity, impartiality. Perhaps Ayden might consider adding them to his ranking document. The group is meeting on Thursday to start discussing the recruits for the WHOIS review team, that ought to be a test of all those qualities....

cheers Stephanie

On 2017-03-27 17:57, avri doria wrote:

personalities rather than abilities

isn't personality often a critical attribute of an emissary?

My hesitation is that such 'objective' ratings are often little more
that subjectivity in disguise. But if it gets the PC past it current
impasse, give it a try.

avri

On 27-Mar-17 17:36, Ayden Férdeline 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>](mailto:ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is)
per conto di

Stephanie Perrin
[<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto: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>](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>](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>](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:icann at ferdeline.com>](mailto:icann 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)[<mailto: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)[<mailto: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)[<mailto: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-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&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=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&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=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&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:gnso-secs at icann.org)
)<mailto: [g

<mailto: [g
[<mailto: [g
nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))>](mailto:nso-secs@<a class=)[<mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>](mailto:[gnso-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

_______________________________________________
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

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
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/20170327/318aed90/attachment.htm>