[Gnso-ssc] Proposed SSC charter revisions - items for discussion

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

some comments inline

2018-02-21 5:21 GMT+09:00 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>:

> Dear SSC members,
>
>
>
> On the last SSC call, members reviewed proposed revisions to the SSC
> charter, which were drafted in response to comments received here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c0NllDbjSFap0KR9s61a8uXJoH78F
> qLtBTOgahLVeLQ/edit. The latest version of the proposed charter revisions
>
>
>
> Several items were identified for further discussion over the mailing
> list. Your input is kindly requested on the mailing list regarding the
> following items:
>
>    - The section of the charter on Transparency currently states: “Unless
>    otherwise directed by the GNSO Council, the names of all applicants and all
>    documents received during the selection process shall be considered public
>    and published on the GNSO web-site or other ICANN web-site. To facilitate
>    its deliberations, the SSC may decide to conduct some or all of its
>    deliberations in private, but if so, it is expected to provide a rationale
>    with its recommendations.” Some SSC members have suggested that the SSC
>    should conduct deliberations privately by default, publishing emails sent
>    to the mailing list, meeting notes, call recordings, and other materials
>    relevant to a selection process only after the selection process has been
>    completed. Do members support proposing this change to the charter? Another
>    suggestion made by an SSC member was to continue the current practices
>    regarding transparency but add disclaimer text to the SSC wiki indicating
>    that all SSC recommendations are subject to GNSO Council approval. Are
>    there additional proposals that SSC members would like to make?
>
>    - On the last call, some SSC members raised questions about how the
>       NomCom operates with respect to confidentiality of deliberations, noting
>       that the NomCom is also a body that conducts selection processes for
>       positions within ICANN. According the NomCom Operating Procedures (
>       https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/nomcom2018-
>       procedures-2017-12-15-en#A4
>       <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/nomcom2018-procedures-2017-12-15-en#A4>),
>       the NomCom keeps all deliberations confidential throughout the selection
>       process and continues to keep this information confidential after the
>       selection process is complete. This is a higher level of confidentiality
>       than SSC members have proposed for the SSC.
>
>
nomcom requirements are quite different and have different oversight, all
deliberations and material are confidential , not even passed to next
nomcom and if I recall correctly members sign a NDA. I think for SSC, we
don't need such level confidentiality but understand that we should publish
after the end of the selection process and make everything public so we are
also accountable to council.

>
>    -
>       -
>       - Staff has investigated options for enabling the SSC to delay
>       public posting of materials, including email and call records and other
>       documentation, until after deliberations for an appointment are complete.
>       While administratively more complicated than the current setup, this is
>       possible from a technical perspective.
>
>       - Under Review Team Appointment Principles, proposed text for
>    bullet 8 included the following text: “The level of consensus reached by
>    the SSC on the selected candidates will also be communicated [to the GNSO
>    Council] as well as any minority views, should these exist.” Do SSC members
>    think that it is appropriate to keep the text “as well as any minority
>    views, should these exist” given that the SSC operates by full consensus?
>    Should this text be clarified to state that the SSC should communicate
>    minority views only if consensus is not possible to reach?
>
>
since our decision are still made with full consensus, I think we will all
communicate minority views when the SSC cannot reach decision and report
that to council.

>
>    -
>    - The same bullet 8 states: “The SSC shall notify candidates of its
>    recommendations to the GNSO Council at the same time that it notifies the
>    GNSO Council of its recommendations, making clear that the recommendations
>    are subject to GNSO Council consideration.” Is the SSC comfortable
>    with beginning to implement this new step after the GNSO Council approves
>    the revised charter (as opposed to sooner)?
>
>
 shouldn't the notification to candidates to be done by GNSO secretariat
after the council votes on the appointment? I am not sure why the SSC
should inform the candidates, the motion would indicate how notification
will be made

 Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ssc/attachments/20180221/564bf5bc/attachment.html>