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

[Susan Kawaguchi]

Hello All

Please see my comments in red below

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
wrote:

> Dear SSC members,
>
>
>
> As a reminder, your input is encouraged on the items below regarding
> proposed SSC charter revisions.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
> *From: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday 20 February 2018 at 21:21
> *To: *"gnso-ssc at icann.org" <gnso-ssc at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Proposed SSC charter revisions - items for discussion
>
>
>
> 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
> are attached.
>
>
>
> 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?
>    Originally, I was advocating to allow the SSC to deliberate in private
>    and then when we had made a decision and informed the Council our
>    deliberations would be made public.  I have no reversed my position after
>    the discussions we have had and think we continue our current practices but
>    add the disclaimer text.  Transparency is important in the multistakeholder
>    community.
>
>

>
>    -
>
>    - 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.
>
>
>       - 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?  Not sure
>    exactly how to edit the language for this but we have allowed in the past
>    comments to be included in the Motion that pertained to our deliberations.
>      One of the motions we suggested the Council encourage more diversity in
>    candidates. We should still allow the comments to be made in the
>    motion.
>
>

>    -
>
>    - 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)?  We should implement this
>    new step after the Council approves the revised charter.
>
> Thanks in advance for your input on these items.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
>
>
> *Emily Barabas *| Senior Policy Specialist
>
> *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
> <+31%206%2084507976>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ssc mailing list
> Gnso-ssc at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ssc/attachments/20180228/0fd31db9/attachment.html>