James is a strong Yes from me (and I've completed the survey). I have the advantage of knowing James reasonably well through ICANN work, and I am sure his understanding of IANA is at least somewhat stronger than mine, though of course perhaps not as strong as a registry employee who has worked directly with those functions, so I have no hesitation on that score, but I agree that some more attention to this in the EOI might have been helpful. And his understanding of issues such as security and reliability is exceptional. I also think having someone on the committee involved in discussion of its design will be valuable for both initializing the committees work and later review. 

I agree that it is disappointing that only one application was received.

David

On Tuesday, 19 July 2016, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:

Rubens,

 

I do have your survey results.  Thank you very much!

 

Thank you also for your very useful comments.

 

Kind regards,

Julie

 

From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>
Date: Monday, July 18, 2016 at 10:50 PM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Cc: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com>, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>, "gnso-csc@icann.org" <gnso-csc@icann.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-csc] Kick Off: Evaluation Meeting/Procedures -- GNSO CSC Liaison Candidates

 

 

Julie,

 

I got an error the first time I sent the survey but got an OK after that... could you check whether my survey results are on record ? 

 

Anyway, my vote is a YES for James. On IANA experience, we should note that we are selection a non-registry liaison, so it's somewhat difficult to find people with direct experience besides former employees of gTLDs, ccTLDs and RIR, or protocol developers. That said, he has direct experience with information security controls; even though the IANA database doesn't require confidentiality, its expectations for integrity and availability are among the highest of any information system in the world, and questions like "who watches the watchers" come automatically to people involved in a security practice. 

 

I also found of use in the position that he participated in the CWG-Stewardship proposal development (see http://www.ncuc.org/james-gannon-multistakeholderism-in-action-update-from-the-cwg-stewardship-istanbul-meeting/)... but if the only available information was his EoI, then it would have been harder to support his application for the position. 

 

 

Rubens

 

 

 

 

On Jul 18, 2016, at 11:21 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:

 

Thanks so much Susan for completing the survey and for your helpful comments.

 

Kind regards,

Julie

 

From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com>
Date: Monday, July 18, 2016 at 8:54 PM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>, "gnso-csc@icann.org" <gnso-csc@icann.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-csc] Kick Off: Evaluation Meeting/Procedures -- GNSO CSC Liaison Candidates

 

I filled out the survey and agree that we need more information about specific experience with IANA functions. 

 

But I am a yes for James.  

Susan Kawaguchi

Domain Name Manager 

Facebook Legal Dept. 

 

 

From: <gnso-csc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Date: Monday, July 18, 2016 at 4:30 PM
To: Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>, "gnso-csc@icann.org" <gnso-csc@icann.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-csc] Kick Off: Evaluation Meeting/Procedures -- GNSO CSC Liaison Candidates

 

Dear Heather,

 

Thanks so much for taking the survey!  

 

As to the call cancelation, unless I hear any objections I will cancel the call well before 12 hours in advance (probably when I go to bed tonight US Eastern Time).

 

When all have taken the survey I will send the survey results to the list.

 

Kind regards,

Julie

 

From: Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>
Date: Monday, July 18, 2016 at 7:23 PM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-csc@icann.org" <gnso-csc@icann.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-csc] Kick Off: Evaluation Meeting/Procedures -- GNSO CSC Liaison Candidates

 

Dear Wolf-Ulrich,

 

Your proposed approach is indeed very sensible. 

 

I confirm that I have completed the survey.

In my view, James Gannon is a YES.

My substantive comment (perhaps best just parked for the future), which I also made in the last box of the survey, is that we should in future rounds ask candidates to provide specific evidence or proof of their familiarity with the IANA functions. James has merely stated that he has this familiarity, so we are essentially taking him at his word (as we must for other questions as well, such as the understanding of the time commitment). We can (and in my view should) demand more vis-a-vis the comprehension of IANA functions.

Also, for the record, I am disappointed that we only had one candidate and think we need to develop strategies for the next time we call for EOIs to ensure we have a more robust process than 'Person X yes or no'. The very tight timeframe inappropriately influences our yes/no decision in this instance.

 

I will be on the lookout for an email from you as to whether we will have the call as scheduled (so much the better for me if not, as it's early morning my time and I have the flu!). Please could you make the announcement at least 12 hours before the scheduled call start time as otherwise David and I will miss your email in our timezones while we are sleeping.

 

Best wishes to you and all,

 

Heather

From: gnso-csc-bounces@icann.org <gnso-csc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 5:45:12 PM
To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-csc@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-csc] Kick Off: Evaluation Meeting/Procedures -- GNSO CSC Liaison Candidates

 

Dear colleagues,

 

after the provision of EOIs the selection doesn’t appear that much complicated. Unless no very late application comes in, there is just one GNSO candidate.

Following from this a candidate ranking shall be obsolete. It’s just the question: James Gannon “yes” or “no”.

 

My suggestion:

- fill in the evaluation tool

- indicate to the list whether you have issues regarding James being suggested to the council as GNSO-CSC liaison

- if there are no issues then the “ranking” call of our committee can be cancelled, and Julie is requested to update the related motion for the council meeting this week

 

BTW: I personally support James being nominated.


Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 

Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 3:18 PM

Subject: [Gnso-csc] Kick Off: Evaluation Meeting/Procedures -- GNSO CSC Liaison Candidates

 

Dear CSC Selection Committee members,

 

As the deadline for Candidates to provide their Expressions of Interest ended on 15 July, this is the formal kick-off of the evaluation process of the Expressions of Interest/Candidates for GNSO CSC Liaison.  

 

Evaluation Meeting:

 

Many thanks to all of you who took the poll.  According to the doodle the only time that works (more or less well) for all: 

 

Tuesday, 19 July:

2100 UTC

1400 PDT – Los Angles, USA

1700 EDT – Washington, DC, USA

1800 PRT – Sao Paolo, Brazil

2300 CEST – Berlin, Germany

 

Wednesday, 20 July:

0500 AWST – Perth, Australia

0700 AEST – Hobart, Tasmania

 

Evaluation Procedures:

 

As of 15 July we have only one candidate: James Gannon. It is possible, however, that others may come in after the deadline.  If so, I’ll forward them immediately.

 

Here are the steps in the process and dates, per the notes from our meeting on 29 June in Helsinki (see below):

 

16-18 July: CSC Selection Committee members conduct evaluation using the SurveyMonkey Evaluation tool (see link below). 

 

19 July, 2100: CSC Selection Committee meets to rank top 4 candidates (or as many candidates as applicable).

 

19 July: CSC Selection Committee will provide the top 4 candidates (or as many as applicable) to the GNSO Council for consideration, and as an amendment to the motion for consideration at its meeting on 21 July.

 

24 July: Meeting to discuss full slate of CSC members and liaisons.  Note: The only time that works, and not for all, is 2100 UTC.  We can discuss on 19 July if we want to keep this time.  In the meantime, I will tentatively get it set up.

 

30 July: Draft motion due for the GNSO Council meeting, or vote outside of a meeting, on 09 August.

 

Evaluation Notes:

1.      The skills evaluation will be the primary criterion to prioritize candidates, but gender and geographic diversity could be secondary criteria.

2.      Each CSC Selection Committee member may draft his or her own ranking that may be used to guide the discussion of the final ranking among the full Committee.

 

The Candidate Expression of Interest and CVs received thus far is attached for your review.  Here is the link to the Survey Tool: https://s.zoomerang.com/r/WVZ239V.  

 

James Gannon has separately provided his CV/bio at: 

 

Thank you very much for your assistance and please let me know if you have questions.

 

Kind regards,

Julie

 

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

CSC Selection Committee Meeting Notes, 29 June 2016

 

1.   CSC Selection Committee rules of working (conflicts of interest, consensus finding, ...):

 

?         Wolf-Ulrich offered, and was accepted, to Chair/Moderate.

?         Conflicts of interest are not an issue since no Selection Committee member plans to apply for the liaison role.

?         Decision-making will be via full consensus with no objections.

 

2.   Discussion of CSC candidate evaluation survey tool and the evaluation process:

 

?         The criteria in the survey tool, which is taken from the original Call for EoI, will form the basis of the evaluation.

?         Determined that there is no need for Selection Committee members to recuse from the evaluation of candidates from the same C/SG because:

o   There are likely to be few candidates;

o   Evaluators from the same C/SG as a candidate may provide useful knowledge and perspective.

?         If an interview of an unfamiliar candidate is desired it might be arranged, but not likely to be needed.

?         Support Staff will check EoIs and request any missing information if necessary.

?         Support Staff will review the survey tool and check to see if both conflicts of interest questions should be mandatory (right now just the first is marked as such).

?         The skills evaluation will be the primary criterion to prioritize candidates, but gender and geographic diversity could be secondary criteria.

?         Each CSC Selection Committee member may draft his or her own ranking that may be used to guide the discussion of the final ranking among the full Committee.

 

3.   Update on EOIs received to date: 1 received thus far

 

4.   Review of CSC Selection Timeline – Comparison of ccNSO and GNSO Activities/Dates:

 

?         Determine why the ccNSO dates are later than those originally proposed for the ccNSO/GNSO/RySG consultation, although this may not be an issue.

?         Note that the ccNSO proposal is that the selection of the full slate of liaisons and members would be made by a joint Selection Committee of the ccNSO/GNSO/RySG.  GNSO CSC Selection Committee members noted that they may be willing to serve on that joint selection committee.

 

5.   Review of Update Slides for GNSO Council Meeting:

 

?         Minor edits.

?         Include Timeline of the comparison of ccNSO and GNSO Activities/Dates.

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
Gnso-csc mailing list
Gnso-csc@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-csc

_______________________________________________
Gnso-csc mailing list
Gnso-csc@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-csc