[NCSG-PC] GNSO SSC selection
Ayden Férdeline
icann at ferdeline.com
Thu Mar 30 21:42:42 EEST 2017
Thank you for keeping us updated, Poncelet. If there are opportunities for collaboration with the Policy Committee or the NCSG more broadly, please do reach out to us.
Ayden
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] GNSO SSC selection
Local Time: 30 March 2017 6:50 PM
UTC Time: 30 March 2017 17:50
From: pileleji at ymca.gm
To: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
Dear Matthew / Colleagues,
Thanks for the update, since I have passed the recuse stage now, I wish to thank all that supported my nomination and that of Renata, knowing that we shall represent NCSG with all your full support.
Today myself and Renata attended the first GNSO SSC meeting, of course it was well noted we still have a vacancy to fill from NCSG. I felt it necessary to mention some key highlights from the meeting to you all.
Key Pointers from today GNSO SSC Meeting.
1. Susan Kawaguchi (BC) co-initiated this project with Ed Morris, and also a candidate for RDS review team, she will step out during the selection process time from the GNSO SSC and another member from BC will take her place as she is a candidate.
2. Members of the GNSO SSC are expected to consult with their own communities. As our communities are more knowledgeable about the candidates from our own community, .So in short myself and Renata will definitely come back to community during selection process for advice as needed during selection process.
I felt I mention this two key pointers as we move ahead, as the deadlines for this is very short.
Thank you all once again.
Kind Regards
Poncelet
Poncelet
On 29 March 2017 at 18:38, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> 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://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf%5Bgnso.icann.org%5D)
<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](tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987)
_______________________________________________
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](tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987)
_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
--
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm
http://jokkolabs.net/en/
www.waigf.org
[www,insistglobal.com](http://www.itag.gm)
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170330/53ff8e27/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list