[Gnso-ssc] Notes and Action Items - SSC Meeting - 15 December 2017

Fri Dec 15 15:58:56 UTC 2017

 Dear Emily,

Please I wish to apologise as I had connectivity down during meeting time,
I had technical work been done and it went ahead of proposed time it could
finish.

Will go through minutes and revert.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 15 December 2017 at 15:55, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear SSC members,
>
>
>
> Please find below notes and action items for the meeting today, 15
> December 2017. These high-level notes are designed to help SSC members
> navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a
> substitute for the recording or transcript. Recordings, call transcripts,
> full chat transcripts, slides and other relevant meeting materials are
> available here: https://community.icann.org/x/qRpyB .
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------
>
>
>
> *Action Item 1: Staff will send follow-up message to SSC members
> requesting input on SSC leadership re-confirmation.*
>
>
>
> *Action Item 2: Leadership team will send follow-up message to SSC members
> regarding the Charter Review with a summary of items discussed and
> questions that require further input via email. This will include draft
> steps to follow if the SSC is unable to reach consensus during a selection
> process. *
>
>
>
> NOTES:
>
>
>
> 1.  Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
>
> - No updates
>
>
>
> 2.  Membership Update, Leadership Confirmation
>
> - Most members are reconfirmed, Erika has joined the SSC and has replaced
> Julf as the NomCom representative on the SSC.
>
> - Members on the call expressed support for keeping the
> existing leadership team.
>
> - Additional input regarding leadership re-confirmation will be sought on
> list.
>
>
>
> 3.  Discussion of Charter Review Document
>
>
>
> *Mission and Scope *
>
> - Question: should the charter keep the full consensus
> requirement for decision making?
>
> - It was noted that the group has done well with
> the existing system of full consensus, therefore the group may want to
> maintain the current model and address any potential roadblocks when
> they arise.
>
>
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> *Erika Mann: *Agree with this approach
>
> *Maxim Alzoba: *RySG strongly disagree with the loss of a consensus
>
> *Maxim Alzoba: *it was the reason to create SSC
>
> *Maxim Alzoba: *and if we do not reach consenus, we
> deliver proper report back to GNSO Council
>
>
>
> - Is it possible to have an alternative such as
> supermajority if the group does not agree, as a "plan B" or safely value?
>
> - One perspective is that decisions of the SSC are reported to the GNSO Council
> and if the SSC is unable to reach consensus, this should be reported to the Council,
> and then the Council should decide how to proceed.
>
> - One member noted that if the SSC does not have
> a full consensus model, the input of specific groups might be lost.
>
> - Staff flagged this issue as a question of what happens in
> the SSC is unable to reach consensus. In the original charter draft,
> there was language stating that one of the Chairs or Vice-Chairs of the Council should
> participate as an ex-officio member of the SSC. This language did not
> make it into the final draft, but may be appropriate to add.
>
> – A Chair or Vice-Chair in this position potentially provides a link
> to Council and can also help to overcome impasse or bring
> the issue back to the full Council to explain why impasse was reached. S/he
> would not have a vote or a voice, but would be an observer and be
> available to answer questions or assist with moderation in
> case of conflict. We currently have Council members on the SSC which
> provides that link, but that will not necessarily be the
> case in the future.
>
>
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> - *Maxim Alzoba: *positive identifiction is not a
> failure , it is a procedure
>
> *Maxim Alzoba: *I mean an identification of a conflict
>
> *Erika Mann: *Monitoring role, why not
>
> *Marika Konings: *without full consensus it is not able to
> put forward any recommendations to the GNSO Council (as currently written
> in the charter)
>
> *Osvaldo Novoa: *I agree totally with Maxim, a
> conflict in an SSC selection is a good information on the
> candidates to the Council.  That is better than selecting
> a candidate we are not all confortable with.
>
>
>
> - One member noted that where SSC members had conflicts
> of interest in the past, we successfully navigated this
> by selecting alternates.
>
> - Members agreed that if the SSC decides to recommend staying with the
> full consensus model and decides to pass the issue back to the Council if consensus is not reached, this
> mechanism should be spelled out in the charter.
>
> - Staff input: The charter is not explicit about what happens if there is conflict among
> members within the SSC. The charter only specifies that the SSC
> will submit recommendations by full consensus. It can be
> difficult or sensitive for the group to communicate how
> or why it did not achieve full consensus. It may not be
> a good idea to be explicit in the charter regarding the
> issue, as it might be helpful to have flexibility if this
> situation occurs.
>
> - One member pointed out that it may not be damaging to
> surface information about who is dissenting, as each member
> is acting as a representative of an SG/C. If members could provide information
> to Council about a dissenting opinion, this would give the Council an
> opportunity to see more of the big picture.
>
> - It was also pointed out that the results of polls within the SSC could
> potentially be shared with Council as part of the report if consensus is
> impossible.
>
>
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> *Maxim Alzoba: *score is always subjective, as I understand ,
> so different scores for candidates is something expected
>
> *Maxim Alzoba: *+1 for drafting the process
>
> *Marika Konings: *you could say something 'in case no full
> consensus is achieved, the SSC will inform the GNSO
> Council accordingly providing the details as necessary and
> agreed by the SSC as to why it was not possible to achieve full consensus'
>
> - In addition to proposed language in the charter, it
> may be helpful to provide internal steps for the SSC to
> follow in this situation
>
> - Members on the call support maintaining a full consensus model
>
> - SSC members on the call support including a Chair of
> Vice-Chair to participate as an ex-officio member of the SSC.
>
> - Members on the call support drafting language for a process to follow if
> full consensus is not possible and proposing language to include in the
> Charter.
>
>
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> *Maxim Alzoba: *some qualifications might seem differently from different
> points of view (like some person's experience looks 5
> for a Registry, but might look differently for a Lawer)
>
> *frederic guillemaut: *yes
>
> *Erika Mann: *I like full consensus as the main approach
>
> *Maxim Alzoba: *including Chair might be a good idea, if it
> is allowed by GNSO Council rules
>
> *Erika Mann: *Got it, yes, I like this
>
> *frederic guillemaut: *it could be a 'plan b'. so yes
>
>
>
> *Deliverables and Timeframes*
>
> - No objections among members on the call to linking in the Charter to
> the draft standard process document (https://community.icann.org/
> download/attachments/64077672/DRAFT%20GNSO%20Standing%
> 20Selection%20Committee%20Standard%20Process%209%
> 20August%202017_clean.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1513188055000&api=v2
> )
>
>
>
> *Membership Criteria*
>
> - Suggestion to make language more consistent in bullets regarding
> membership criteria. The current text reads:
>
> “The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members (not including the
> ex-officio members), appointed as follows: - One member *appointed by*
> each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House; - One member *appointed
> respectively from* each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual
> Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity
> Providers Constituency; - Three members *appointed by* the Non-Commercial
> Stakeholder Group; and, - *One member from* one of the three
> Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.” (underline added by
> staff to highlight discrepancy)
>
> - Is there a downside of selecting a representative who is not a member?
>
> - From a staff perspective, this is up to the SG/C to
> determine who should be a representative. The assumption is that SG/Cs
> would pick someone from their membership or community, but
> it may not be necessary to explicitly state this.
>
>
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> *Marika Konings: *you could argue that SG/Cs are
> representative bodies so they could determine who would
> represent them best, while nom com appointees serve as individuals
>
> *frederic guillemaut: *yes
>
>
>
> - Suggested edit supported by members on the call: Change "One member *appointed
> respectively from *each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual
> Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity
> Providers Constituency " to "One member *appointed respectively by *each
> of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and
> the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency.”
> The purpose of this edit is to make language regarding SG/C selections
> consistent.
>
>
>
> *Formation, Staffing, and Organization*
>
> - Members on the call generally supported clarifying language that if a
> person misses a call that they don't need to recuse
> themselves, but that they do need to do so if they are
> conflicted for a particular appointment or if they are planning a
> prolonged absence.
>
>
> *Committee Formation, Dependencies, and Dissolution*
>
> - There appeared to be general support among members on the call to
> consider April 2017 through AGM 2017 a ramp-up period, with the term of
> members officially beginning at the AGM 2017. The first term for members
> will run from the AGM 2017 to AGM 2018, with the option to renew for one
> term for a total of two consecutive terms served.
>
>
>
> 4.  AOB
>
> - None
>
>
>
>
>
> *Emily Barabas *| Senior Policy Specialist
>
> *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
> <+31%206%2084507976>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ssc mailing list
> Gnso-ssc at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc
>

-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd

*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ssc/attachments/20171215/f1889bfa/attachment-0001.html>