[Gnso-ssc] Notes and Action Items - GNSO SSC - 31 May 2017

[Emily Barabas]

Dear SSC members,

Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s meeting. These high-level notes are designed to help SSC members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room transcript or the recording. The meeting recording and transcripts will soon be available at: https://community.icann.org/x/5yPwAw.

Staff will shortly send out sample text for the poll discussed on the call.

Kind regards,
Emily



GNSO Standing Selection Committee meeting on Wednesday 31 May at 14.00 UTC

Action Items:

Follow-up questions from the call:

  *   For James Bladel: Are we sure there will not be conflicting time commitments for the Chair during ICANN meetings if the Chair also serves as EC Admin rep? Will ICANN always provide non-conflicted slots for meetings that EC Admin reps need to attend?
  *   What is the status of the RDS Review Team selection process?
  *   What provisions exist under the current, temporary EC Admin rep arrangement in the case that an alternate is needed?

Staff will send out sample poll for feedback, incorporating suggestions from today’s call.

Notes:

1. Roll Call / SOI

- SSC members: Susan, Maxim, Julf, Lori, Osvaldo, Renata

- Guest: James Bladel

- Apologies: Frédéric, Marika (staff)


2. Exchange of views with the current representative to the Empowered Community Administration (James Bladel, GNSO Chair)

- What have you done so far? What will be required from the role?

- This committee has yet to define criteria and make selection for the rep role, therefore James is interim representative.

- Experiences so far are limited and brief. The EC Admin was quiet for some time, and is still feeling out its processes and operations, particularly routine items like reviewing budget or nominations to the Board of Directors. These are items that the EC Admin has a role in managing.

- Bigger functions as part of EC accountability mechanisms - these will not be used regularly if at all.

- Most participants are Chairs or similar designation of SOs or ACs. All agree that they are mouthpieces of their community and don't have the ability to act independently unless instructed by their communities.

- Qualifications - someone who understands the role. It is not to be a member of an "uber board or council." They are speaking on behalf of the entire GNSO community and do not act unless authorized to do so.

- At this stage, it should be someone who can think down the road as processes are developed and set.

- Someone who gets along well with byzantine processes. The role needs to be approached carefully and the person must be sure to take a step back when something needs further input from GNSO.

- Time commitment - initially it was zero, but has picked up moving towards ICANN59, developing processes. The time commitment will likely drop again. Even at the worst case, this is not likely a significant burden - at most an hour or two a week. It's almost entirely by email. There will be one session at ICANN59 because of proposed revision to the Bylaws. Anyone coming from the GNSO should have perfect attendance.

- Currently all EC reps are Chairs of their communities. Will that continue with other SOs and ACs?

- Presume that they have considered this to be a function of the Chair. They have bolted this role to the Chair role. There is not currently any indication otherwise.

- Would it make sense to appoint an alternate?

- The GNSO might want to designate an ad hoc alternate. May not need a standing alternate. More important would be the process around what happens if the person changes jobs, leaves ICANN, or does something out of order.

- For example, the Chairs and Vice-Chairs could quickly appoint a substitute if need.

- If the rep was a Council member, there could be immediate correction if the rep "went rogue." If the rep was someone else, would there be less control or wouldn't it matter?

- Either way is ok.

- Do we need a process for removing a person?

- Some of this is more appropriately taken up by the GNSO Council. The SSC should view it's role narrowly: Process for selecting applicants, selection of applicants. Process for handling issues with rep may be better handled by the Council.

- Is it better to say that such processes should be developed without providing specifics?

- Yes, identifying gaps to fill may be helpful.

- What would James like to see in the criteria?

- This should at minimum be someone on Council, and perhaps Chairs and Vice-Chairs on a rotating basis.

- If we open up the process, harder to manage the rep and requires duplication of processes that already exist for Council (appointments, terms, etc). Opening up the process may fuel the incorrect impression that this something other than a microphone for the EC. By connecting it to an existing role, the role will be more sustainable in the long term.


Chat excerpt:

Maxim Alzoba: Could we suggest that ICANN provides remote connection (private) for remote participants?

Maxim Alzoba: for EC meetings

Maxim Alzoba: since travel is not suggested

Julf Helsingius: remote connection?

Maxim Alzoba: I mean if there is a f2f EC Adm. meeting - ans someone is not there

Maxim Alzoba: during the ICANN meeting

Maxim Alzoba: I mean if there is a f2f EC Adm. meeting - ans someone is not there

Maxim Alzoba: I think we might mention that we thin that those procedures are to be developed (not saying how and by whom)

James Bladel: +1 Maxim

Maxim Alzoba: *think (sorry for typos ... sitting in uncommon place)

Julf Helsingius: James: would it be too much workload if we simply had the GNSO chair perform this function?

Lori Schulman: I think that first test will be budget review


- In response to Julf's question about time commitment, no, as things currently stand, it would not be too much work for the Chair to take on.

- Is there any sort of coordination or reporting that goes to the community more generally?

- There is a website being set up where the mailing lists, discussions, and reports will be published. The representative could come back to the Council or GNSO to relay a request from the EC. In the other direct, if an SG wants the EC to consider, for example, an issue with the budget, they would raise it with Council, which would instruct the rep how to proceed.

- Would it be in the scope of this role to develop communications plan?

- No, the SSC’s role is just to develop criteria for selecting the rep and then selecting the rep. While the SSC might want to point to procedures that need to be developed, the GNSO will develop those processes and procedures.


Chat excerpt:

Maxim Alzoba: my question for James: it is not just time consumption, but also scheduling conflicts (with GNSO Council activities), could we ask James if he is sure that there is not going to be an overlap (so during the ICANN meeting ,ICANN always provides EC Adm with the non-conflicting slots, so Chair can be there)

Maxim Alzoba: *about the burden of being GNSO EC rep.

Lori Schulman: Thanks, I heard James supporting the narrow task of identifying candidates but I agree about sending notes of some issues that we have considered that may be out of scope for this group but in scope for another group

Lori Schulman: Maxim's point about time overlaps is a good one

Maxim Alzoba: if such slots can not be granted ... then standby Rep should be in place

Julf Helsingius: james pointed out that scheduling is done by doodle

Lori Schulman: Excellent point Maxim.

Lori Schulman: and there are still conflicts


3. Review of questions and possible responses in view of possible poll


Chat excerpt:

Maxim Alzoba: I have a suggestion for page 2: Term and Renewal  - that the person is still affiliated with/supported by GNSO Council or at least affiliated with GNSO (for example - member of NCSG, RrSG e.t.c).

Lori Schulman: is Heather the alternate? [if James is not available]

Lori Schulman: I think that finding out if there is an "official" alternate would be helpful so we understand what is acutally happening

Maxim Alzoba: issue of Term will be resolved via "fast removal" procedure we might suggets to invent

Julf Helsingius: Current arrangement is temporary in any case


- Suggestion - maybe outgoing or former Chair (one to two terms) would be a good candidate -- understands how the system works but has more time.

- Suggestion: poll of choices provided plus an additional field to write in responses.

- Any additional questions or possible answers to add to the poll?

- Suggestion -- if there is a quick mechanism for replacement, perhaps term is less important to focus on.

- Suggestion - Make the leadership team of the Council the default for serving as rep. Leave it to them to decide which one serves and which one stands in as alternate.



Chat excerpt:

Julf Helsingius: I like "anyone in the leadership team"

Maxim Alzoba: I think that scheduling conflicts usually happen at moments of high load, like right prior to Fin Plan discussions deadline e.t.c

Julf Helsingius: "anyone in the leadership team" avoids us having to come up with new procedures

Maxim Alzoba: @Julf, do you think we might add " with approval of GNSO Chair, and if not possible for natural reasions - by GNSO Council) ?

Julf Helsingius: Sure!


- Add as one option in the poll -- SSC recommends to use GNSO leadership as a pool for EC Admin reps. The leadership team decides among themselves who is rep, alternate, etc.

Lori Schulman: agree with Maxim. SSC nominates

Lori Schulman: not chooses


4. Schedule of upcoming calls

- Suggestion to keep Wednesday at 14:00 UTC.



5. AOB

ACTION ITEM: Ask James about RDS Review Team.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ssc/attachments/20170531/46885d9b/attachment-0001.html>