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

Sat Jan 27 14:20:35 UTC 2018

+1

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy at gmail.com> wrote:
>   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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ssc mailing list
>> Gnso-ssc at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ssc mailing list
> Gnso-ssc at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc