<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra">Hi,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">some comments inline<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2018-02-21 5:21 GMT+09:00 Emily Barabas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org" target="_blank">emily.barabas@icann.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="m_7914170590750696431WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Dear SSC members,
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">On the last SSC call, members reviewed proposed revisions to the SSC charter, which were drafted in response to comments received here:
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c0NllDbjSFap0KR9s61a8uXJoH78FqLtBTOgahLVeLQ/edit" target="_blank">
https://docs.google.com/<wbr>document/d/<wbr>1c0NllDbjSFap0KR9s61a8uXJoH78F<wbr>qLtBTOgahLVeLQ/edit</a>. The latest version of the proposed charter revisions<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Several items were identified for further discussion over the mailing list. Your input is kindly requested on the mailing list regarding the following items:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="m_7914170590750696431MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:0cm">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt">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?<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span>
<ul type="circle">
<li class="m_7914170590750696431MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:0cm">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt">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 (<span class="TSRSpan" id="TSRSpan_31"><img class="TSRWebRatingIcon" src="chrome-extension://cfeleongjhdjephegmmmdjgbfjiindbe/./images/webicon_green.png" style="width: 16px; height: 16px; border: 0px;"></span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/nomcom2018-procedures-2017-12-15-en#A4" target="_blank" style="background-color:rgb(184,234,184)">https://www.icann.org/<wbr>resources/pages/nomcom2018-<wbr>procedures-2017-12-15-en#A4</a>), 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.<br></span></li></ul></li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class="m_7914170590750696431WordSection1"><ul type="disc"><li class="m_7914170590750696431MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:0cm"><ul type="circle"><li class="m_7914170590750696431MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="m_7914170590750696431MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:0cm">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt">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.<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></li></ul>
</li><li class="m_7914170590750696431MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:0cm">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt">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?<br></span></li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class="m_7914170590750696431WordSection1"><ul type="disc"><li class="m_7914170590750696431MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="m_7914170590750696431MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:0cm">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">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.”</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Is the SSC comfortable with beginning to implement this new step after the GNSO Council approves the revised charter (as opposed to sooner)?</span></li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div> 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<br><br> Best,<br><br>Rafik</div></div></div>