[Gnso-ssc] SSC / Team review for RDS

[Maxim Alzoba]

Hi Julf , 
The ranking is as good as the information provided along with the voting . As I write it was conducted with mistakes. Since not all SSC members voted the same way - it was not consensus opinion.

The ranking does not reflect more than formal opinion of voters summarised and divided by the number of candidates. And since the number of GNSO was wrong ,  even the numbers in report were incorrect.

Experience could be established via additional information requests and via interviews , and definetely not by voting.

If we sacrifice ability of the RT to conduct proper assessment (ability to make 'sanity checks' of ideas using the real life experience) of the procedures and policies in sake of diversity , then we fail our mission.

If we are taking about balance ,  there are no single representative currently at guaranteed 3 seat from the Contracted Party House and I do not belive it is a balanced approach to diversity.


-- 
Maxim Alzoba, 
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my typos.


-------- Original Message --------
From: Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>
Sent: 13 April 2017 17:55:12 GMT+03:00
To: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com>, gnso-ssc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ssc] SSC / Team review for RDS

Hi, Maxim,

> Do we want to sacrifice expertise in technical field and in operations,
> and knowledge of real life scenarios in sake of diversity?

I am assuming that the ranking in our survey reflects the expertise
and experience.

> I do not belive that it will add value to the review team.

I think the issue is that the diversity argument can be used
both to argue for changing the recommendation and to argue
for not changing it.

	Julf