[Gnso-ssc] Input Requested by 9 January - Revised Charter Review Document

Wed Dec 27 20:21:13 UTC 2017

Dear all

I've noted a few comments on the document.
As before, I'm in general agreement with the points.
There was a comment on the communication of the selection by an SSC Liason.
I've observed if this should be permanent deliberation (who does the
announcement) and to ascertain who this should be.

Hope you all had a good end of the year break and a fantastic 2018 for all

Renata

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear SSC members,
>
>
>
> Your input is requested on the revised Charter Review Google Doc, which
> reflects input received on the recent SSC call:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c0NllDbjSFap0KR9s61a8uXJoH78FqLtBTOgahLVeLQ/edit
> . If possible, please insert comments and suggestions directly into the
> relevant sections in the Google Document.
>
>
>
> Feedback on two sections -- Transparency and Rules of Engagement on pages
> 7-12 -- are particularly welcome, as the Committee did not have time to
> cover these sections on the call.
>
>
>
> Please provide feedback by 9 January 2018.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
> From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
> Date: Friday 15 December 2017 at 10:55
> To: "gnso-ssc at icann.org" <gnso-ssc at icann.org>
> Subject: Notes and Action Items - SSC Meeting - 15 December 2017
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ssc mailing list
> Gnso-ssc at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc