[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

Tue Mar 28 13:31:02 EEST 2017

Hi,

Not bad.  I would give it a try.

If nothing else, just the fact of the deciders talking though all of
these issues could help draw out the choices.

To get this done, you might want to get the deciders on a conference
call (not recorded as this is discussion of personal details) and see if
you can get the deciding done. Even without statement you probably know
enough cumulatively about the candidates.

Just a thought:  I would suggest that people stop discussing the process
until after this decision is made.

Good luck

avri

On 27-Mar-17 18:36, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> 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> 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: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> 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-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: [g
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>> nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><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
>>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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