[Gnso-ssc] SSC / Team review for RDS

Sun Apr 16 22:43:14 UTC 2017

Thanks, Mary.

If I may also remind you of the following provision in the SSC Charter:

·         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.

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).

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.

Best regards,

Marika

On 4/13/17, 11:49, "gnso-ssc-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Mary Wong" <gnso-ssc-bounces at icann.org on behalf of mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:

    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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ssc/attachments/20170416/6a087d68/attachment-0001.html>