[Gnso-ssc] Draft poll - skills matrix evaluation - SSR2-RT

Fri Jan 26 19:30:33 UTC 2018

  I have reviewed the poll and it seems very easy to insert input I am fine
with it.

Thanks for setting it up.

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
wrote:

> Dear SSC members,
>
>
>
> It appears that Survey Monkey is now requiring users to login to use the
> poll in “preview” mode. I apologize for that. I don’t think this was
> previously the case with this mode.
>
>
>
> To ensure everyone can test the poll, I’ve gone ahead and opened it.
> Please use this link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/DFHMTT5. I will
> clear the results before we start officially collecting votes, so feel free
> to submit “test” answers.
>
>
>
> Let’s extend the deadline for testing the poll. How about Tuesday 30
> January at 11:00 UTC? If anyone needs more time, please just let me know.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
> *From: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday 25 January 2018 at 21:51
> *To: *"gnso-ssc at icann.org" <gnso-ssc at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Draft poll - skills matrix evaluation - SSR2-RT
>
>
>
> Dear SSC members,
>
>
>
> Following an action item from the call today, staff has produced a draft
> poll to evaluate remaining SSR2-RT candidates based on attributes included
> in the attached skills matrix. Please find a preview of the draft poll
> here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/create/preview/?sm=
> 50pEczALMZ80V7EW8NRJ5gXbjv4aYn8s_2BehtuuSaiKM_3D&tab_clicked=1 .
>
>
>
> Please note that the poll is not yet open. The preview allows you to test
> the format and provide feedback. If you would like to suggest changes to
> the poll content or format, please send your input by 20:00 UTC on Sunday
> 28 January. Staff will open the poll on Monday.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
> *From: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday 25 January 2018 at 09:08
> *To: *"gnso-ssc at icann.org" <gnso-ssc at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Notes and Action Items - SSC Meeting - 25 January 2018
>
>
>
> Dear SSC members,
>
>
>
> Please see below the action items and discussion notes from our meeting
> today.  These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate
> through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for
> the recording or transcript, which are posted on the wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/x/Uge8B.
>
>
>
> For reference, the proposed draft revisions to the SSC Charter are
> attached. *Members are encouraged to send comments about this document to
> the list. In particular, please provide input on the Transparency section
> on page 4. *
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
>
>
> ACTION ITEMS
>
> Action Item 1: Staff will circulate draft poll for feedback comparing
> skills of remaining SSR2-RT candidates and rows in the attached skills
> matrix.
>
> Action Item 2: SSC members will review the attached redline charter and
> provide feedback, with particular focus on the Transparency section on page
> 4.
>
> Action Item 3: Staff will send out a Doodle poll for the next meeting,
> planned for the second week of February.
>
>
>
> NOTES:
>
> 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
>
> - no SOI updates
>
>
>
> 2. Comparison of remaining SSR2-RT candidates and matrix
> of skills produced by existing SSR2-RT members
>
> - GNSO Council has tasked SSC with comparing the two
> remaining candidates for the SSR-RT with the skills matrix
> produced by the existing SSR-RT candidates.
>
> - Existing team appears to be fairly balanced. There does not
> appear to be any category that is an obvious gap.
>
> - The candidates have distinct skill sets.
>
> - One possible path forward - one or two members
> take the lead in filling in candidate skills in the table. The rest of the group reviews
> and refines this analysis.
>
> - Alternate approach - conduct a poll among all members.
>
> - The SSC could also go back to the original poll completed earlier this
> year and see how the candidates compare, noting that this poll is less
> granular.
>
> - Reminder that the Council tasked the SSC with focusing on the skills
> matrix and whether candidates fill any gaps. This is not
> yet a selection assignment.
>
> - Members agree to conduct a new poll (see action item).
>
>
>
> 3. Review of draft proposed revisions to the SSC Charter
>
> - Staff has created a first draft of the proposed revised
> charter based on the feedback received from SSC members and
> discussion on the previous call.
>
> From the chat:
>
> Maxim Alzoba: I think we need feedback from other members too
>
> Maxim Alzoba: I have a comment about page5 - the described situation is
> related to the case where there is no consensus and SSC
> needs to report the issue to the GNSO Councel with
> prepared reasoning and options
>
> Maxim Alzoba: it was about minority views
>
>
>
> - Support expressed for keeping text: "as well as any minority views, should these exist”
> (at the bottom of page 5).
>
> - Regarding the section on Transparency, the optics
> might be a challenge if we publish information about
> deliberations before the Council has made a decision.
>
> - One suggestion -- make deliberations private,
> including call recordings, and email list before a
> decision is made, publish this information later.
>
> - Alternately, the group continue with the status quo and ensure timely
> communication to candidates when the group notifies the GNSO Council of
> its recommendation.
>
> From the chat:
>
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro: I'm much more in favor of making
> this list only private
>
> Maxim Alzoba: @Renata, I am not sure we can do it
>
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro: I think halfway solutions are
> awkward. Either we have full transparency or not.
>
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro: and prone to errors, non-records
>
> Maxim Alzoba: if we do not find the way to properly
> design delayed output model, we might continue the usual way of SSC
>
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro: i think the delay is just for the announcement
>
> Maxim Alzoba: after all it works more or less Ok
>
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (which is only real anyway once GNSO right?)
>
> Emily Barabas: Perhaps the group can start with timely
> notifications and then if it encounters issues, look into
> further measures?
>
> Maxim Alzoba: when we release the same info to all
> participants, it is both transparent and clear... we might need a proper
> disclaimer section of such messages
>
>
>
> - Suggestion – revis-t timeline document to ensure the group is notifying
> candidates in a timely manner.
>
> - Suggestion -- add additional clarification in the email from the SSC to
> candidates with disclaimer text.
>
>
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ssc/attachments/20180126/ad417123/attachment-0001.html>