[NCSG-PC] GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) meeting Monday 27 Jan 2025
Johan Helsingius
julf at Julf.com
Sat Feb 15 13:49:06 EET 2025
Just a reminder that the deadline for suggestions for SSC charter
revisions is Tuesday 18 February.
Julf
On 10/02/2025 01:49, Pedro de Perdigão Lana wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Regarding the SSC charter, I'll be making two suggestions for a
> potential change of the document, and would like to see if the community
> agrees with them:
>
> * Considering what Julf mentioned in the last part of his report, it
> would be beneficial to have clearer rules about when individual
> votes would be open and when they wouldn't, so SSC members can raise
> sensitive topics within their reasons to vote, and reach for a
> proper level of accountability to the community at the same time.
> * I am asking for a mechanism that would give the SSC the capability
> to interact with the Ombudsperson when selecting certain positions.
> To be more precise, it seems to me that, especially in roles such as
> mentorships, it would be extremely inadequate to have someone
> involved in harassment processes get into an asymmetrical position
> of power with a newcomer. As mentioned before, I'm not sure how much
> this would be possible considering the confidentiality/privacy
> issues involved and their legal implications, but discussing this
> could be a good step.
> o I would, however, like to hear your considerations here (and if
> someone already had a concrete idea on how to implement this, or
> something similar to this).
>
> Cordially,
>
> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
> Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
> Researcher
> PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
> Coordination/Board/EC @ISOC BR <https://isoc.org.br/>,NCUC <https://
> www.ncuc.org> & NCSG <https://community.icann.org/display/
> gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN), YouthLACIGF <https://youthlacigf.lat/
> >,IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> and CC Brasil <https://
> br.creativecommons.net/>
> This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received
> by mistake, please reply informing it.
>
>
>
> Em ter., 28 de jan. de 2025 às 16:58, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com
> <mailto:julf at julf.com>> escreveu:
>
> Thanks Pedro!
>
> Julf
>
>
> On 28/01/2025 17:40, Pedro de Perdigão Lana wrote:
> > Thanks once again for the detailed report, Julf!
> >
> > Adding to the last part of your comment, if the community would
> like to
> > search for potential improvements to the current charter, this is
> the
> > link to the current version: https://community.icann.org/display/
> GSSC/2 <https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/2>.
> > +Charter <https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/2.+Charter
> <https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/2.+Charter>>.
> >
> > Pgs. 5 and 6 (part of "Section IV: Rules of Engagement"), appear
> to be
> > most relevant text to be analyzed..
> >
> > Cordially,
> >
> > *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
> > Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/ <https://www.nic.br/>>, GEDAI/UFPR
> <https://www.gedai.com.br/ <https://www.gedai.com.br/>>
> > Researcher
> > PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
> > Coordination/Board/EC @ISOC BR <https://isoc.org.br/ <https://
> isoc.org.br/>>,NCUC <https://
> > www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>> & NCSG <https://
> community.icann.org/display/ <https://community.icann.org/display/>
> > gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN), YouthLACIGF <https://
> youthlacigf.lat/ <https://youthlacigf.lat/>
> > >,IODA <https://ioda.org.br/ <https://ioda.org.br/>> and CC
> Brasil <https://
> > br.creativecommons.net/ <http://br.creativecommons.net/>>
> > This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If
> received
> > by mistake, please reply informing it.
> >
> >
> > Em ter., 28 de jan. de 2025 às 07:21, Johan Helsingius
> > <00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu
> <mailto:00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu>
> > <mailto:00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu
> <mailto:00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu>>> escreveu:
> >
> > Hi again everyone,
> >
> > It has been a busy period for the SSC, with meetings every week,
> > but now all the appointments in the queue have been handled so
> > the frequency of meetings should go down significantly.
> >
> > Yesterday the topic was the Latin Diacritics PDP Working
> Group Chair.
> >
> > Attendance was up, with all but 3 members (Mike Rodenbaugh (IPC),
> > Frank Anati (NCSG) and Susan Mohr (ISPC) - Susan did submit
> apologies
> > in advance) present.
> >
> > Again, as the SSC procedures prescribe a 48-hour consensus call
> > period allowing committee members who were not in the meeting to
> > raise objections I can't yet announce the result, but I can say
> > that the candidate everyone in the NCSG camp thought best suited
> > did get chosen.
> >
> > The way the SSC works is that an initial round is done by a
> 2-part
> > poll. The first part asks SSC members to state, for each
> candidate,
> > if they think the candidate satisfies the requirements for the
> > position, and the second part asks the members to rank the
> candidates.
> > Nominally this is just an initial poll to inform the discussion,
> > but there has been little discussion and usually the poll results
> > determine the choice.
> >
> > Interestingly the SSC vice chair Segunfunmi Olajide (BC)
> questioned the
> > mechanism and its results.
> >
> > I did raise the issue that staff extended the poll deadline
> by 2 hours
> > at last minute after chasing members who hadn't responded. My
> concern
> > is that arbitrary decisions to extend the deadline can be used to
> > influence the result and is unfair towards members who make the
> > effort to meet the deadline.
> >
> > In the previous meeting I raised the question about the fact
> that the
> > (anonymous) poll replies showed one member stating that the
> candidate
> > at the top of the poll was not suitable, and wondered if that
> was a
> > showstopper. The member who had given the answer identified
> themselves
> > and explained that as a new member, they had answered "no" simply
> > because that candidate wasn't one of their preferred choices,
> so it
> > should not be seen as a showstopper.
> >
> > Seems that my question was misconstrued as wanting to know
> who answered
> > what, and to my surprise, this time the polling results and
> answers
> > showed who had voted and answered what. I did raise the issue
> that
> > this should not happen without the members being told in
> advance that
> > that would be the case, and the Chair, Karen Day (RySG)
> responded that
> > "the decision was made under leadership discretion to provide an
> > additional layer of transparency and provide full context to the
> > outcome".
> >
> > In this case, it did give an opportunity to see that poll
> responses
> > to a large degree reflected constituency/stakeholder group lines.
> >
> > There was also some discussion about possibly requesting the
> > Council to review the SSC charter. The current charter will be
> > circulated to SSC members for comments.
> >
> > So far no date has been set for the next meeting as there are
> > no appointments pending.
> >
> > Julf
> >
>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list