[Gnso-ssc] Notes and Action Items - SSC meeting - 07 January 2021

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear SSC members,


Please find below notes and action items from today’s call on Thursday, 07 January 2021 at 13:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/2021-01-07+GNSO+Standing+Selection+Committee.


Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director





Action Items:



Discussion of poll results and candidates – GNSO-Nominated Mentor for the ICANN Fellowship Program

ACTION ITEMS: Staff to ask on the list if there are any objections to putting forward Farrel Folly as the candidate and also whether the person commenting on Question 13 that none of the candidates were qualified is willing to elaborate on the list.  Ask the SSC members to respond by Monday, 11 January.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to draft a placeholder motion (without the name) for the GNSO Council meeting on 21 January.



Next steps – GNSO’s Representative(s) to the Community Representatives Group that will nominate the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel

ACTION ITEMS: Staff to circulate a draft poll for review, open the poll, and SSC members will be asked to take the poll.  Staff will schedule a placeholder meeting for next week for SSC discussion of the results of the poll with a 24-hour objection period to follow.  Staff also will draft a placeholder motion in case the decision is taken in time for the January Council meeting.



Notes:



1. SOI Updates: None provided.



2. Discussion of poll results and candidates – GNSO-Nominated Mentor for the ICANN Fellowship Program (additional information here<https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/2021+GNSO+Appointed+Mentor+-+ICANN+Fellowship+Program>)



Poll Results:

-- 8 responses and Marie sent her responses separately.

-- 4 candidates.

-- Summaries: Question 3 – all respondents thought that Farrel Folly was the most qualified.  About equal for Vivek and Desara.  Less support for Hago.

-- Question 13: One comment that no candidates were fully qualified.  No further comments were made on this when asked in the meeting.  Note that Naveed and Jothan are not on this call. It is possible that one of them provided the comment that none of the candidates are qualified.

-- Seems that Farrel Folly was the most qualified of the candidates.  Are there any objections or any holes in the skills for the candidate?



ACTION ITEM: Staff to ask on the list if there are any objections to putting forward Farrel Folly as the candidate and also whether the person commenting on Question 13 that none of the candidates were qualified is willing to elaborate on the list.  Ask the SSC members to respond by Monday, 11 January.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to draft a placeholder motion (without the name) for the GNSO Council meeting on 21 January.



3. Next steps – GNSO’s Representative(s) to the Community Representatives Group that will nominate the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel (additional information here<https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/CRG+-+IRP+Standing+Panel> and here<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=GSSCMO&title=CRG+-+IRP+Standing+Panel+-+Additional+Materials>)



-- Originally planned for the end of January, but this has been extended to the 18 February Council meeting.

-- Talk about the next steps to make a decision.

-- Staff provided a guide to make a decision.  From that guide there may be criteria for a more in-depth review of the candidate in the form of questions, and that a CV also would be helpful.  There may also be a role for an interview, particularly if there was more than one candidate.  (In this case there is just one candidate.)

-- The EOI has closed.

-- You can also find general information about the assignment and useful background on the public wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/X4omCQ.

-- The EOI did not request a lot of detailed information from the candidate.

-- Does the SSC feel it can conduct a rigorous analysis in accordance with the guidance document given the information in the EOI and your experience with the candidate?   See attached slides with questions for consideration and below.

-- Recognize that this is the first time that the SSC is using this process so it will set precedent.  So, consider the questions below for future processes or for a second call for EOIs.

-- For future it might be helpful to ask for the full CV, even if not in this case.

-- An additional possibility is that the SSC recommends putting forward Heather for the role and writes in its report that additional information should be requested for future EOI processes.

-- The SSC charter foresees for the SSC process whereby the SSC members make an individual evaluation.  Some members may not have gone through the guidance document.  It might be helpful to run a short poll just asking if you think the candidate is qualified.  Schedule a meeting next week (at least as a placeholder) to discuss the results and the report with a 24-hour follow up to ensure that there is full consensus on the decision.

-- With regard to the report, the idea is that we will outline what the process was this time and making recommendations for revisions to the process for future candidates.

-- What is the update on a possible second call for EOIs?  SG/C leaders have been asked whether there could be a second call for EOIs because the GNSO has two slots.  This is a separate question from considering Heather.  The status is that the SGs/Cs are still considering the request, but this should not have an impact on the SSC’s current evaluation of Heather.



ACTION ITEMS: Staff to circulate a draft poll for review, open the poll, and SSC members will be asked to take the poll.  Staff will schedule a placeholder meeting for next week for SSC discussion of the results of the poll with a 24-hour objection period to follow.  Staff also will draft a placeholder motion in case the decision is taken in time for the January Council meeting.



Slide 1 (attached):

  *   Question for the SSC: Does the EOI provide enough information for the SSC to determine whether to recommend the candidate according to criteria in the Guidance Document from SG/Cs?
  *   If not, what additional information would enable the SSC to make this decision?
     *   CV/Resume from the candidate?
     *   CV/Resume + more detailed written responses from the candidate regarding qualifications?



Slide 2 (attached):

Possible Questions for the Candidates:

  *   If the SSC determines that it needs additional written responses from the candidate, the following questions may be appropriate to ask, based on the Guidance document from SG/Cs:

Please provide additional detail to assist the SSC in evaluating your EOI with respect to the following criteria:

     *   Understands the IRP and its role as an ICANN accountability mechanism
     *   Possesses relevant organizational and process experience, i.e. ability to understand and evaluate the standing panelist criteria and responses, which includes legal and arbitration experience
     *   Is aware of the GNSO’s diversity of interests and conscious of the need to represent the GNSO as a whole (i.e. must not represent just their SG/C’s interests)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ssc/attachments/20210107/44f662b7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SSC - GNSO Rep CRP options - 7 Jan 2021  -  Read-Only.pptx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
Size: 44241 bytes
Desc: SSC - GNSO Rep CRP options - 7 Jan 2021  -  Read-Only.pptx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ssc/attachments/20210107/44f662b7/SSC-GNSORepCRPoptions-7Jan2021-Read-Only-0001.pptx>