[Gnso-ssc] SSC / Team review for RDS

[Mary Wong]

Hello everyone,

Although I am not the primary staff support for this Committee I thought it might be helpful to quickly address the concerns Maxim has raised relating to the staff assessment and GNSO affiliation of the candidates. 

My understanding is that whether a particular candidate who was seeking endorsement from the GNSO can indeed be considered a GNSO-affiliated candidate was the first question posed to SSC members on the survey. This was to therefore assist the SSC in evaluating which of the 14 candidates seeking GNSO endorsement ought to be nominated (along with the other questions about expertise and experience).

In relation to the staff assessment and methodology used, on 4 April Marika circulated information provided by our colleagues from the Multistakeholder Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department who are coordinating the Review Teams. I attach the email again for your reference.

I hope this is helpful as the SSC continues to finalize its latest discussions. Please be reminded that the GNSO Council meets to discuss the topic on 20 April, so any additional guidance the Committee may wish to provide should ideally be submitted to the Council as soon as possible.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

On 4/13/17, 11:48, "gnso-ssc-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Maxim Alzoba" <gnso-ssc-bounces at icann.org on behalf of m.alzoba at gmail.com> wrote:

    Julf, 
    
    please find my answers below
    
    
    > On Apr 13, 2017, at 18:17, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
    > 
    > Maxim,
    > 
    >> 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.
    > 
    > Can you please help me understand this? What mistakes were there
    > that affected the voting?
    
    Here are some basic bits:
    
    1. The name  used for voting was wrong "Evaluation of GNSO Candidates for RDS Review Team (option 1)" (not all candidates had something to do with GNSO )
    
    2. Icann staff did not check information about candidates (3 did not belong to GNSO, thus the total scores of Q5 were wrong, it was division by 14 instead of division by 11, and it is quite simple math).
    
    3. Methodology used by Icann staff for adding label (fits all requirements/some / most ), was not clear and might have caused confusion and this info was delivered only after the poll and only after the additional request to do so. 
    
    In situation where the voting conducted incorrectly - the results are compromised.
    
    to say more, my notes, which were provided with the poll were not reflected, whilst in our Charter minority views need to be reflected. (Art 8, Section IV)
    
     The same text I asked Marika to add to the results.. it was not done
    
    And if you check the URL on our page https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_GSSC_RDS-2BReview-2BTeam&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=QqFSZJbiCjWo_J2endEQos1gKblJDVIQ8QWHf1sdwCI&s=VmRl6AUQZyLvAtGtYNsv5JjDKHuoK5XHChGIKnh9AV4&e= 
    
    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ru.surveymonkey.com_results_SM-2DL2VBBBLB_&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=QqFSZJbiCjWo_J2endEQos1gKblJDVIQ8QWHf1sdwCI&s=ghruARnY06W_XHIhfRUnkwnqYP7lFLykh4zoSz-FTA8&e= 
    the notes are not visible, despite being the part of the poll form.
    
    In my opinion it is enough to say that we should stick to our Charter and try to fix it.
    
    
    > 
    >> 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.
    > 
    > I agree, but as I pointed out, the diversity argument can be
    > made both ways.
    
    Here I have to agree with you, unfortunately we have too many different groups for such 
    small number of seats, and it is quite disappointing in my opinion.
    
    > 
    >> 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.
    > 
    > But if we do the proposed change, there would not be a single
    > representative of the non-commercial / non-business constituencies.
    > Not sure that would be balanced either.
    > 
    > As long as we can't have enough seats for all constituencies there
    > will always be some sort of imbalance. The question is what degree,
    > and what kind of imbalance we can accept. In my view, Erika Mann,
    > being "above" both houses, helps address any imbalances.
    
    I do not think that being above is the right justification here.
    Does Erika act as a representative of the RySG or RrSG? - I do not think so.
     
    After all we do not select persons for just being Directors, and the ex Roles of 
    Directors of policy are not necessarily reflect technical experience (it is more for CTOs, and CIOs usually).
    
    > 
    > 	Julf
    > 
    
    _______________________________________________
    Gnso-ssc mailing list
    Gnso-ssc at icann.org
    https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc
    

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RDS Applicant Review Email - 4 April.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 107768 bytes
Desc: RDS Applicant Review Email - 4 April.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ssc/attachments/20170413/0e06d5ad/RDSApplicantReviewEmail-4April-0001.pdf>