Re: [Gnso-csc] Notes/Actions: CSC Selection Committee Meeting 15 June 2016

June 16, 2016

      Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

The Council and the ccNSO must jointly agree on the full membership (liaisons and members).  At that point the GNSO would select the primary/preferred GNSO candidate (as you note) assuming that candidate met the diversity requirements.  This will be done with the GNSO (and ccNSO) viewing the full slate of CSC members since they must agree on all the members and liaisons.  The procedures state, “While it will not be the role of the ccNSO and GNSO to question the validity of any recommended appointments to the CSC they will take into account the overall composition of the proposed CSC in terms of geographic diversity and skill sets.”

As for the other SOs/ACs, first I should note that the liaison is not mandatory, so the GNSO does not even need to make a selection, nor to the other SOs/ACs.  ICANN assumes that each SO/AC will follow its own procedure for selecting its liaison and these procedures may differ.  For example, an SO/AC could submit just one candidate (or none)  

Let me know if this is helpful, but I’m happy to answer further questions.

Kind regards,

Julie

From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 1:51 PM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com>, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>, David Cake <davecake@gmail.com>, "rubensk@nic.br" <rubensk@nic.br>, "gnso-csc@icann.org" <gnso-csc@icann.org>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>
Subject: Re: Notes/Actions: CSC Selection Committee Meeting 15 June 2016

Thanks very much Julie. I should have read the procedure more diligently.

So I understand that the GNSO process goes through 3 steps: 4, 2 candidates, and then the council selects 1 (out of 2) to meet the diversity requirements.

Q: This requires that the other CSC members are already known. How does this work in case other SO/ACs use a similar modus operandi?

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Julie Hedlund 

Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 7:10 PM

To: WUKnoben ; Susan Kawaguchi ; Heather Forrest ; David Cake ; rubensk@nic.br ; gnso-csc@icann.org 

Cc: Marika Konings ; gnso-secs@icann.org ; Terri Agnew ; Austin, Donna 

Subject: Re: Notes/Actions: CSC Selection Committee Meeting 15 June 2016

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

I updated the form based on yours and Susan’s suggestions.  The revised version is attached.

Concerning conflicts of interest, perhaps the Selection Committee can decide how to deal with them should they arise.  Furthermore, I would think it is possible that if a member of the Selection Committee decided to apply then that person might recuse him/herself from the evaluation and selection process.

Concerning the candidates, the procedures (attached) that have been accepted by the GNSO Council state, “The Selection Committee will rank the candidates and the top four candidates will be presented to the GNSO Council for discussion.   The two final candidates will be put forward by the GNSO Council in order to meet the diversity requirement.”  Please see the attached procedures.

Thus, the Selection Committee will select four (of course if there are enough for four) and the Council will send forward two – a preferred candidate and an alternate.  Again, assuming there are two candidates.

I hope this is helpful, but please let me know if you have further comments or questions.

Kind regards,

Julie

From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 5:23 AM
To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>, David Cake <davecake@gmail.com>, "rubensk@nic.br" <rubensk@nic.br>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>
Subject: Re: Notes/Actions: CSC Selection Committee Meeting 15 June 2016

All,

I agree with Susan. In addition, under “affiliation” candidates should indicate the constituency they are affiliated with.

Re the 1st sentence in the template I’d like to suggest the following amendment which to my understanding expresses clearer that the liaison is a GNSO liaison (not a RrSG or NCPH one) and the candidates should come from the RrSG and NCPH:

<< 

This template is developed specifically for completion by GNSO - CSC liaison candidates (Registrar Stakeholder Group or Non-contracted Parties House of the GNSO).
...
...
How are we going to deal with potential conflicts of interest – just in case a member of our SelectCom is filing an application? Or is this excluded?

@Julie: From the notes of our call I read “Note that it is suggested for the GNSO to select 2 candidates: preferred and alternate.  The SC members will need to determine the process for determining these candidates and what to do if there is only one or more than 2”. Isn’t my understanding correct that the SC should select 2 candidates and the GNSO (council) should then select one of these 2?

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Susan Kawaguchi 

Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 9:01 PM

To: Julie Hedlund ; Heather Forrest ; WUKnoben ; David Cake ; rubensk@nic.br 

Cc: Marika Konings ; gnso-secs@icann.org ; Terri Agnew ; Austin, Donna 

Subject: Re: Notes/Actions: CSC Selection Committee Meeting 15 June 2016

Hello all, 

I have reviewed the Eol template and would add the option of indicating gender on the form.  I also think question 9 is a good question to ensure that the applicant understands the purpose of the CSC.

I always favor transparency and think we should provide the applicant’s name to the GNSO council. 

Best regards, 

Susan Kawaguchi

Domain Name Manager 

Facebook Legal Dept. 

From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 7:20 AM
To: Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>, Susan kawaguchi <susank@fb.com>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, David Cake <davecake@gmail.com>, "rubensk@nic.br" <rubensk@nic.br>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>
Subject: Notes/Actions: CSC Selection Committee Meeting 15 June 2016

Dear CSC Selection Committee members,

Please see below the notes and actions from today’s call with Donna Austin and let me know if there is anything I have missed.  I have attached for your reference the presentation Donna provided today.  As noted today our next meeting will be a face-to-face meeting during the ICANN 56 meeting in Helsinki.  I will separately send a doodle poll to pick a time and based on the results I will schedule a room. 

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Notes/Actions:  Selection Committee to review the evaluate candidates for the GNSO CSC Liaison process, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 12:00 UTC

1. CSC Charter

Action Item: SC members should review the CSC Charter at: https://www.icann.org/iana_imp_docs/41-csc-charter-v-v1 (also attached).

2.  Expression of Interest (EoI) Template

Notes: 

?         The ICANN deadline for submitting EoIs is 15 July (see the attached Call for EoIs).  The deadline for final selections is 22 July, but for the GNSO the Selection Committee should plan to have this occur during the GNSO Council meeting on 21 July (see the attached detailed timeline).

?         Although James sent the Call for EoI letter to the GNSO Council on 01 June (see attached email) with a request for the SGs/Cs to circulate it, the SC should send it again more formally, perhaps on Monday, 20 June, along with the EoI template.

?         A key point to consider is whether or not to keep the candidates secret. See the GAC Liaison process at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/request-liaison-gac-30mar16-en.pdf whereby the “GNSO Council Chairs will review the applications received and rank these...” noting that the candidate names are not provided to the GNSO Council during this evaluation process.  Note also concerns express on the Council list with respect to lack of transparency in the GAC Liaison selection process.

Action Items: 

1)       Selection Committee members should review the EoI template and provide comments no later than COB for furthest west time zone on Friday, 17 June.

2)       Selection Committee members should indicate whether or not candidates’ names should be known only to the Selection Committee members, or also revealed to the GNSO Council during the Selection Committee’s evaluation process (ICANN has left this determination up to each SO/AC).

3)       Staff will incorporate changes and prepare the formal Call for EoIs with a goal to send on Monday, 20 June on behalf of the Selection Committee.

3.  Candidate Evaluation Process

Notes:  

?         The Selection Committee will need to develop a process for how to evaluate the candidates.

?         RySG is developing a Survey Monkey survey for the evaluation of its CSC member.

?         Consider whether the GNSO Selection Committee should use a survey tool for evaluation.

?         Note that it is suggested for the GNSO to select 2 candidates: preferred and alternate.  The SC members will need to determine the process for determining these candidates and what to do if there is only one or more than 2.

Action Items:

1)       Staff will send a doodle to arrange a 60-minute face-to-face meeting in Helsinki for the discussion of the evaluation process.

2)       Staff will liaise with the RySG Secretariat to see if we can get a copy of their evaluation survey to use as a template to develop a GNSO candidate evaluation survey.

3)       Staff will provide the survey template to the Selection Committee next week for discussion at the face-to-face meeting in Helsinki.

Julie Hedlund

tags

participants (1)