<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial">Dear SSC Members,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial">Please find below notes and action items from the call today, Monday 17 April 2017 at 13:00 UTC.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial">While not all members of the SSC were present on the call, those that did attend have proposed a way forward for the full group to consider. The suggested solution: Recommend to the GNSO
Council that the top four candidates should have seats on the RDS-RT. Provide instructions for the Council to advocate for this recommendation with the SOs and ACs, noting that only the top three candidates are guaranteed slots in the RDS-RT, and that any
additional appointments are at the discretion of the SOs and ACs. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial">Staff will shortly circulate details about this proposal to the SSC list for further consideration and will revise the Council motion to reflect this proposal. The SSC may have an additional
call on Wednesday if further discussion is needed to reach consensus on the proposal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial">Emily<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">GNSO Standing Selection Committee teleconference on Monday, 17 April 2017 at 13:00 UTC for 60 minutes</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Notes: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">- Recap on status: We received an email from Frederic that on further consultations, we felt that he could not support the ranking of candidates. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">- He proposes an alternate ranking to increase the diversity of stakeholder groups represented in the top three candidates, recognizing that the top three candidates will automatically be included
in the RDS-RT. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">- Some other members expressed concern about this proposal. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">- Staff displayed the following text in the AC room for the SSC to reference:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">From the SSC Charter:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">The SSC shall strive as far as possible to achieve balance, representativeness, diversity and sufficient expertise appropriate for the applicable selection process. In order to achieve balance and diversity on the Review Teams, the SSC is strongly encouraged to employ a system of rotation to Review Team selections. Any Stakeholder Group which nominated candidates(s) for a Review Team but did not have a candidate selected for that Review Team shall be preferred as a qualified applicant from their Stakeholder Group for one of the three guaranteed slots for the next GNSO Review Team appointment processes.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Even though the SSC was not responsible for the selection of the candidates for the SSR2-RT, you may want to factor this into your continued deliberations to achieve full consensus on the candidates to be proposed for the RDS RT? The following community members, including their respective affiliation were selected for the SSR2-RT following GNSO endorsement: James Gannon (NCSG), Denise Michel (CSG – BC), Emily Taylor (RrSG). As a reminder, based on the initial survey and deliberations, the SSC ranked the proposed candidates for the RDS RT as follows: 1-3: Susan Kawaguchi (CSG – BC), Erika Mann (non-affiliated – non-voting Nominating Committee member to the GNSO Council), Stephanie Perrin (NCSG), 4) Volker Greimann (RrSG), 5) Marc Anderson (RySG), Stefania Milan (NCSG) and Timothy Chen (CSG – BC).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">It may also be worth noting that for this specific review, no requests for endorsement were received from the ASO, RSSAC and SSAC which means that at least in theory there will be additional seats available. It will however be up to the SO/AC chairs to decide whether or not to fill these additional seats.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Maxim Alzoba: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Marika, please add to the note, that the note of Frederic was supported by me.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Maxim Alzoba: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">and that Both Frederic and me referenced to " sufficient expertise " in technolgy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">- Question - can we take an additional consenus call?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">- Response - if we no longer have full consensus, then the Council is not expected to consider the recommendation from the SSC. If SSC does not reach full consenus prior to Thursday, the motion will need to withdrawn or deferred. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">- Reminder - It is only the top three that will automatically be included in the RDS-RT. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Renata Aquino Ribeiro: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">I believe Poncelet disagrees with the change regardless of there being 3 or 4</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Julf Helsingius: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">That's how I understood it too</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Julf Helsingius: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">So no consensus eiher way</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">- Only one review team has so far been filled using this process, no additional members from the GNSO were included. For the RDS-RT, there may be additional slots beyond the three, although this is not guaranteed.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">- Could we bring the outcome of the discussion as it currently stands to the Council?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">- The charter envisions that the SSC only puts forward consensus recommendations to the GNSO Council, although it could be possible to give the Council a set of options based on the SSC's delberations. It is also possible for the SSC to request more time from the Council. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Renata Aquino Ribeiro: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">I would like to know if these additional seats will be available, because that would help us in consensus. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Julf Helsingius: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Yes, knowing about additional seats would help</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">- The assignment of any "free" seats will be dependent of the SO/AC discussion. The SSC can recommend guaranteeing the top four, and the Council can make this case to the SOs and ACs but the outcome will depend on the deliberations of the SO/ACs.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">From the chat: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Julf Helsingius: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">I think we would have pretty good argumets to James to argue for a 4th position</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Renata Aquino Ribeiro: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">And perhaps we can send that communication to SO/ACs to ask them for support</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Options for next steps:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">1. Agree to a change in the top 3 candidates.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">2. Go back to the GNSO Council and ask for additional time (and possibly request additional information to inform deliberations).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">3. Go back to the GNSO Council and say that no consensus is anticipated.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">4. Go back to the Council recommending top four candidates with instructions to the Council to defend the allocation with the SOs and ACs. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">- General support for option 4. Staff will revise the motion, circulate this idea on the mailing list for consideration by those not currently on the call, and leave open the option of having an additional call on Wednesday.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">ACTION ITEM: Staff will revise the motion and circulate on the mailing list a proposal to go back to the Council recommending top four candidates with instructions to the Council to defend the allocation with the SOs and ACs. </span><o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>