On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 5:53 AM Demi Getschko <demi@nic.br> wrote:

+1
demi

On 04/06/19 15:51, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
> Alejandra +1
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:49 AM Alejandra Reynoso
> <alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt <mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt>> wrote:
>
> Dear All
>
> After re-reading the guideline and taking into consideration the
> well founded explanation provided by Katrina, I don't see the need
> to re-write anything of the process in the guideline. It is very
> clear:
> - Everyone in the ccNSO community will have the guideline available.
> - Anyone who is nominated can decline a nomination.
> - Nominations need to be public to be able to second them.
> - Anyone who is nominated and then seconded can decline a nomination.
> - After accepting a nomination the candidates need to provide
> consent for the background check; or decline and step down from
> the process.
>
> Everything is transparent and no surprises should be expected.
>
> Best regards,
> Alejandra
>
> --
>
> Photograph
> *Alejandra Reynoso
> *Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt
> *P:* +502 23688565
> *E:*alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt <mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt>
> 18 Ave. 11
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=18+Ave.+11&entry=gmail&source=g>-42
> Zona 15, V.H. III.
> Guatemala, Guatemala
> www.gt <http://www.gt/>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 3:05 PM Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv
> <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote:
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
> Thank you for this discussion. Before going into details, I
> would like to say that I fully support and believe that it is
> important that we develop and approve a reasonable and
> workable procedure. We will have to apply it in August when we
> start the next selection process. However, I cannot say that
> this discussion is very timely. As I already said on the call,
> the procedure generally looks like this:
>
> Step 0: discussions with the community and the Council
>
> Step 1: draft developed by the Guidelines Review Committee (GRC)
>
> Step 2: draft submitted and reviewed by the Council (if any
> comments, the draft goes back to the GRC)
>
> Step 3: draft submitted to the ccNSO members for comments
>
> Step 4: the document is finalised by the GRC
>
> Step 5: the finalised document goes to the Council for approval.
>
> With respect to the Guideline on selection of candidates for
> Board Seat 11 and 12 - the document or rather one part of the
> document that is questioned - we currently are at Step 5. To
> be fair, Stephen did submit a statement at the last day of
> Step 3 privately to me – no other ccTLD submitted their
> comments. I responded (I must admit that my response was
> unprofessionally emotional mainly due to the fact that Stephen
> is a member of the GRC and the Council and therefore could
> and, in my view, should have raised his concerns during steps
> 0-2). In Kobe, during the GRC meeting (Step 4), the document
> was on the agenda and I specifically asked Stephen if he had
> any comments. Stephen said that he had no further comments.
>
> We started with Step 0 in Abu Dhabi, October 2017 (!!!).
> Raising comments that might bring us back to Step 0 at this
> point (we were supposed to be Step 5, see above), is in my
> view disrespectful to the time and contributions of everyone
> who has been involved in developing the document.
>
> Having explained the process to date with respect to the
> changes of section 3.5, I’ll now get more to the point with
> respect to the concerns raised.
>
> 1. *List of items against which a candidate is vetted*
>
> First, in particular for our new Councillors, let me share
> with you the list of checks, against which a candidate’s
> background is vetted. The list was shared with the Council in
> December 2017:
>
> * Employment History Verification (via news articles, press
> releases, regulatory and securities documents and
> reputational sources)
> * Academic Verification (via news articles, press releases,
> regulatory and securities documents and reputational sources)
> * Verification of Professional Memberships/Licenses
> * Local & International media search (first 50 articles;
> flag adverse articles for our attention)
> * Internet search (first 50 articles; flag adverse articles
> for our attention)
> * Financial Regulatory Registration & Status (confirm
> whether the selectee is registered with the Securities &
> Exchange Commission, or Financial Services authority and
> whether they have any adverse proceedings or are not
> disqualified)
> * Verification of Other Business Interests (check against
> information in SOI and public records)
> * Disqualified Directors search (establish whether the
> selectee is, or has been disqualified from being a company
> director)
> * Insolvency/Bankruptcy check (check against relevant public
> records)
> * Civil litigation (check against relevant public records)
> * Fraud/Corruption/Terrorist and Compliance Searches (check
> against international risk databases)
> * Criminal Records Search (check against relevant public
> records or Police records with consent of the selectee, in
> nations where criminal record searches are legal)
> * Global Risk Compliance Database Search
>
> The background check is run by an ICANN contracted due
> diligence provider. Currently - James Mintz Group, which is
> also used by the NomCom and the other SO/ACs who conduct a
> background check.
>
> 2. *The candidates*
>
> It is not entirely clear to me, why the candidates should be
> viewed as people who suffer from amnesia, concussion or a
> severe case of Alzheimer’s disease. Each candidate is
> pre-warned that a background check is taking place and has to
> agree to it. Details about the background check are available,
> and the candidate can end their candidacy (or even not accept
> the nomination) at any time during the process (even before
> the ICANN org or anybody else is informed).
>
> Look at the list! It is not about parking tickets or stealing
> apples from neighbour’s garden. If anything so serious shows
> up, it should not come as an “unpleasant surprise” to any
> normal individual.
>
> Of course, I completely agree that candidates should be
> guarded against unwarranted outcomes, but at the same time
> this should not be achieved at the cost of community who, by
> definition, is unfamiliar with the candidate’s background.
>
> 3. *Timing of publication of the name of the candidate(s)*
>
> Related is the point of time when the name of the candidate is
> published. To date we publish the names of all nominations
> (Council, Board) as soon as they are received, together with
> name of the one who nominated the person. This is done to
> inform the community as early in the process as possible. This
> allows other ccTLD managers to second the nomination.
>
> Please note that even when a candidate’s name is not listed,
> at a minimum the nominator and seconder know the candidacy.
>
> If nobody knows who is nominated, 1) we are in a black box and
> 2) it is up to the potential candidate to find both the
> nominator and the seconder, because nobody can second an
> unknown nomination.
>
> 4. *Who and how should be informed about the results of the
> background check?*
>
> First of all, based on my experience and knowledge of GDPR and
> related matters, the references to it in this case are
> irrelevant, even if a candidate would be from one of the
> countries, which are part of the EU. The question of public
> figure’s data has been discussed in EU already under the
> previous data protection regulation: “…whilst a private
> individual unknown to the public may claim particular
> protection of his or her right to private life, the same is
> not true of public figures (see Minelli v. Switzerland (dec.),
> no. 14991/02, 14 June 2005)”. The Resolution 1165 (1998) of
> the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the
> right to privacy provides a possible definition of “public
> figures”. It states that “Public figures are persons holding
> public office and/or using public resources and, more broadly
> speaking, all those who play a role in public life, whether in
> politics, the economy, the arts, the social sphere, sport or
> in any other domain.” I would say that /potential/ ICANN Board
> members are public figures. We should not use GDPR as a shield
> to avoid our responsibility.
>
> In addition, the details of what is made public, are limited
> (see below on what is shared, for the reason to avoid
> processing potentially sensitive data) and definitely MUST NOT
> include details of the background check.
>
> 5. *Previous discussions*
>
> If you check the Council minutes from Abu Dhabi, October 2017,
> you will see three arguments that were discussed and later
> found their way into the current version of the guideline:
>
> 1. The Council discussed whether to do the screening of all
> candidates or only of the elected one. “Peter Vergote
> noted his understanding of the rationale of the background
> check, but wondered if there is a way to limit the risk by
> having the screening for the one candidate after the
> election, rather than the added risk of screening all
> candidates before the election.” Vs “Abibu Ntahigiye noted
> he believes the background check should be done on all
> candidates”.
>
> Peter was, indeed, talking about reputational risks to
> candidates. During the Council discussion no clear preference
> was identified but there was a slight inclination to vet all
> the candidates.
>
> 2. “Debbie Monahan commented that any decision that may come
> from the screening be made by the ccNSO versus ICANN
> staff.” There were NO objections to this proposal.
>
> 3. Young-Eum and others supported the idea to learn from
> other SO/ACs.
>
> We consulted with other SOACs, and the main conclusions were:
>
> 1. Nominations are public,
> 2. They screen selected candidates only, not all who had been
> nominated or stepped forward themselves (I think it’s to
> lower the costs),
> 3. The results are received by the appointing organisation,
> 4. The process takes 3-4 weeks,
> 5. If a background check fails, the SO/AC in question does
> not nominate the candidate.
>
> The procedure that seemed most appropriate for the ccNSO, was
> the one adopted by ASO:
>
> *** ASO: Background check
>
> The elected candidate will be subject to an independent due
> diligence review conducted by an ICANN provided contractor
> referred to as due diligence provider. This review will
> require written consent of the elected candidate, obtained by
> the due diligence provider before the due diligence review
> begins. All candidates will provide this consent during the
> nomination phase. Depending on the region in which the elected
> candidate is located, this due diligence review process
> generally takes 3-4 weeks from when the due diligence provider
> is notified of the elected candidate. The process is meant to
> ensure that there is nothing in the candidate’s past or the
> information provided to the ASO AC during the nomination
> process which would raise any concerns about the candidate
> serving as a member of the ICANN Board.
>
> Voting ASO AC members (15 at max) will see the results of the
> due diligence. Although it has never happened before, they
> “would probably find it helpful to receive some explanation
> and context from ICANN if their contractor were to come back
> with a negative result, to understand what the issues were
> broadly”. ***
>
> This is what largely is included into our guideline with the
> only difference that all our candidates are vetted before the
> members vote. As our most recent vote showed, if you know
> where to look, you can see the results of the vote and make it
> public, for example, by publishing it on FB. A candidate may
> step down at any moment for any reason. If a successful
> candidate steps down, in the eyes of general public it might
> be a clear indication of a failed due diligence process.
>
> We also included the part that the Council may get more
> actively involved to protect our candidates.
>
> 6. *Proposed guideline section 3.5*
>
> I would urge everyone to read the actual guideline,
> specifically section 3.5. If the wording of the guideline is
> not clear, it should be clarified and corrected. But there is
> no need to claim the guideline says what it does not say. Nor
> is there a need to look for conspiracy theories.
>
> The current procedure is as follows:
>
> 1. Candidates are nominated and seconded by a ccTLD manager.
> 2. Candidates formally accept their nominations.
> 3. All nominations and secondments are public, i.e. published.
> 4. The names of *all* candidates are given to the independent
> Due Diligence provider. All candidates undergo background
> check.
> 5. Results (red, amber, green flags – not “personal
> information” as Stephen claims) are given to the Chair,
> vice-chairs, other designated person who then inform the
> Council (again, red, amber, green flags) and the Council
> has to decide what to do (not if everything is green).
>
> On the Council call last week, I specifically asked Stephen to
> be precise in whatever he is proposing, referring to exact
> articles of the guideline he is proposing to change.
> Unfortunately, I cannot find that in the three-page document
> he sent to the mailing list. I believe that Bart and I have
> already spent (actually, as it now turns out, wasted) too much
> time on this guideline. I do not think Stephen should expect
> us to spend even more time trying to figure out what he means
> and what he wants to be changed.
>
> Therefore, I invite everyone who wishes to contribute to the
> discussion to propose their wording to the text of the guideline.
>
> If the changes are significant, I believe we must send it to
> the community for comments once more.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> ]{atrina
>
> *From: *Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org
> <mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Nick
> Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk
> <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>>
> *Date: *Thursday, 30 May 2019 at 17:19
> *To: *Ajay DATA <ajay@xgenplus.com
> <mailto:ajay@xgenplus.com>>, "`stephen deerhake @ asnic`"
> <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>>, ccnso-council
> <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [ccnso-council] Action item regarding my issue
> with the proposed Board Seat 11 and 12 Guideline
>
> Yes, this would be a more orthodox procedure.
>
> 1. Call for nominations makes it clear that background checks
> clearance (ie the individual is fit and proper to be an
> officer of a Californian company) is a condition for
> nomination and the necessary consents are obtained up front.
> 2. Background checks are done (could be via third party
> referencing agency).
> 3. Candidate slate is published after the checks are complete.
>
> In my experience of running the Nominet elections, the main
> debate was over the extent of the background checks. Should
> this be limited to matters that at law would disqualify them –
> criminal convictions, bankruptcy etc, or go further to make an
> independent factual check on the claimed employment history
> and other matters included on their CV and nominations papers?
> Or even whether the candidates have the skills and experience
> are being sought as a minimum from suitable candidates.
>
> But the point is that ccNSO members should know at the point
> they cast their votes that the candidates are all appointable,
> and any issues are resolved prior to publication of the
> candidate list.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Nick
>
> *From:* Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org
> <mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *Ajay DATA
> *Sent:* 30 May 2019 12:15
> *To:* `stephen deerhake @ asnic` <sdeerhake@nic.as
> <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>>; ccnso-council
> <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [ccnso-council] Action item regarding my issue
> with the proposed Board Seat 11 and 12 Guideline
>
> Hello Stephen,
>
> The *way forward* you suggested - "/I suggest a more suitable
> proposal needs to have prospective candidates submit
> nominations, with appropriate seconds, acceptances, and a
> signed release for the background check to an appropriate
> entity within ICANN.ORG <http://ICANN.ORG> without public
> disclosure of the candidacy at the time./"
>
> The above approach is already in practice by Nomcom and I have
> experienced the same. However I believe ICANN.ORG
> <http://ICANN.ORG> outsources the same. The entire thing was
> private and at-least I have not seen any information in public
> domain. Only after the candidate clears the background check,
> his name was announced. Before that no one knew in public
> domain that I applied for any position.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ajay Data
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* "Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC" <sdeerhake@nic.as
> <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> MailId : [91550901]
> *To:* ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org
> <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>>
> *Subject: *[ccnso-council] Action item regarding my issue with
> the proposed Board Seat 11 and 12 Guideline
> *Date:* 30 May 2019 02:37:21 PM
>
> Greetings,
>
> Please find attached (PDF; A4 format) a detailed explanation
> of my issues with the proposed Guideline for the Election of
> Board Seats 11 and 12, as we discussed on our recent
> tele-conference. I am happy to discuss this further of course.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> /Stephen
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccnso-council mailing list
> Ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
> processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing
> to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms
> of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit
> the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
> delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a
> vacation), and so on.
>
> Do not Remove:
> [HID]20190530143721295[-HID]
>
> _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council
> mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org
> <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
> _______________________________________________ By submitting
> your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms
> of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit
> the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
> delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a
> vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccnso-council mailing list
> Ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
> processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing
> to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms
> of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit
> the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
> delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a
> vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccnso-council mailing list
> Ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing
> list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
> Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
> delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation),
> and so on.
>
> --
>
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the system manager. This message contains confidential information and
> is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
> addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
> Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received
> this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you
> are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing,
> copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents
> of this information is strictly prohibited.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccnso-council mailing list
> Ccnso-council@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.