Hi Susan,
even though I am a recent addition to the council, I have been "around the block" a few years back, and so I am new to the changed processes, but I do share some of the discomfort with the process. I do understand the SSC is a (relatively) new (at least to
me) addition to the way candidates for roles are selected. Having reviewed the charter of the SSC, I note that its mission is to:
"where applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to
the selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as ICANN review teams, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates, 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointmentrecommendations for
review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all interested parties."
From what I have seen so far, it sounds like the selection of the chair is a foregone conclusion now that Paul has already been selected by the SSC but that would be premature. If that were the case, its actual role would go beyond the stated mission of making
a recommendation to the council and reduce our role to a mere rubber-stamping function. It used to be the basic assumption that the working group would select its leadership, not the council, but now the council seems to have abdicated this role to a committee.
Instead of a choice between candidates, or letting the WG make their own choice, we are reduced to approving or denying an already determined result.
Your response to Bruna seems to indicate that you assume that if we were not to elect a chair as the council, and especially the one chair candidate recommended by the SSC, the WG would be without leadership for the entirety of the Mumbai meeting, but I do
not share this assumption. Instead, the PDP guidelines provide for an exact process that would be followed to allow the meetings to run smoothly and effectively. Staff would provide an interim chair and the first order of business would then be the selection
of a chair by the WG. This could be achieved rather quickly in the first half hour of the meeting if managed effectively.
Now, I do note that there is something to be said for the added efficiency that this process seems to bring, but efficiency is not always preferable over agency.
Please note that none of this is in any way directed against Paul, whom I hold in very high regard and see as a highly qualified choice. This is entirely about the process and the way we seem to be conducting our business these days.