[NCSG-PC] GNSO SSC selection

matthew shears mshears at cdt.org
Wed Mar 29 21:38:46 EEST 2017 

Hi all

As discussed in earlier emails below, members of the NCSG PC (Ayden, 
Juan Manuel, Marilia, Martin, Stefania, Stephanie and I) met this 
evening for 1.5 hours to review, discuss and hopefully agree our slate 
of three members for the SSC.  You will recall that we have 3 positions 
and 5 candidates - Renata, Kris, Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.  As noted 
below, Ed, Rafik and Poncelet recused themselves from the process given 
their candidacies. Tapani has also recused himself.

We were partially successful.  For a variety of reasons, not least of 
which were their strong candidacies, we agreed that Renata and Poncelet 
should hold two of the three places in the Committee.  We congratulate 
them on their selection.

Kris has significant experience.  But we agreed his profile, while 
impressive, was not as suited for the role as the other candidates.  
This said, we appreciated Kris putting his name forward and look forward 
to meeting with him in Johannesburg and exploring opportunities for 
further engagement in NCSG.

For connectivity and time reasons we did not get to a discussion about 
the third slot - between Ed and Rafik.  This discussion will be resumed 
next week and it is the commitment of the PC to have a decision on the 
third place by Friday the 7th of April.

This means that for the first SSC meeting tomorrow there will be two of 
the three members present.   I have let ICANN staff know.

Thanks for your understanding and support.

Matthew


On 28/03/2017 13:39, matthew shears wrote:
> + 1 Avri
>
> Also, thanks Ayden for putting the google doc together (see below).  
> All - if there are other criteria that should be considered please add 
> them today.
>
> I think Avri is right - given the diversity of views among the PC 
> members who will be deciding, a call/discussion using the criteria for 
> guidance is probably the best (only?) way forward.
>
> I will circulate a doodle for the "deciders" and try and set up a time.
>
> Thanks for your patience and understanding as we move this forward.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 28/03/2017 11:31, avri doria wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list