[NCSG-PC] GNSO SSC selection

avri doria avri at acm.org
Thu Mar 30 07:36:16 EEST 2017 

Hi,

Thanks for this update.

I think that in picking one from NCUC and one from NPOC, one from LAC
and one from Africa, one a man and one a woman, you have made an
excellent start of it.  Not only that, both are quite qualified.

And choosing between 2 elected council members, both therefore
representatives of NCSG, for the third is also good as our argument for
3 members on the SSC centered on the existence of NCSG separate from the
constituencies.

Not bad for a 90 minute call.

Thanks to the deciders.

avri


On 29-Mar-17 14:38, matthew shears wrote:
> 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
>>
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list