- Gnso-ssc - lists.icann.org

Notes and Action Items - SSC Meeting - 15 December 2017
by Emily Barabas Dec. 15, 2017

Dec. 15, 2017

Dear SSC members, Please find below notes and action items for the meeting today, 15 December 2017. These high-level notes are designed to help SSC members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript. Recordings, call transcripts, full chat transcripts, slides and other relevant meeting materials are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/qRpyB . Kind regards, Emily ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Item 1: Staff will send follow-up message to SSC members requesting input on SSC leadership re-confirmation. Action Item 2: Leadership team will send follow-up message to SSC members regarding the Charter Review with a summary of items discussed and questions that require further input via email. This will include draft steps to follow if the SSC is unable to reach consensus during a selection process. NOTES: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates - No updates 2. Membership Update, Leadership Confirmation - Most members are reconfirmed, Erika has joined the SSC and has replaced Julf as the NomCom representative on the SSC. - Members on the call expressed support for keeping the existing leadership team. - Additional input regarding leadership re-confirmation will be sought on list. 3. Discussion of Charter Review Document Mission and Scope - Question: should the charter keep the full consensus requirement for decision making? - It was noted that the group has done well with the existing system of full consensus, therefore the group may want to maintain the current model and address any potential roadblocks when they arise. Chat excerpt: Erika Mann: Agree with this approach Maxim Alzoba: RySG strongly disagree with the loss of a consensus Maxim Alzoba: it was the reason to create SSC Maxim Alzoba: and if we do not reach consenus, we deliver proper report back to GNSO Council - Is it possible to have an alternative such as supermajority if the group does not agree, as a "plan B" or safely value? - One perspective is that decisions of the SSC are reported to the GNSO Council and if the SSC is unable to reach consensus, this should be reported to the Council, and then the Council should decide how to proceed. - One member noted that if the SSC does not have a full consensus model, the input of specific groups might be lost. - Staff flagged this issue as a question of what happens in the SSC is unable to reach consensus. In the original charter draft, there was language stating that one of the Chairs or Vice-Chairs of the Council should participate as an ex-officio member of the SSC. This language did not make it into the final draft, but may be appropriate to add. – A Chair or Vice-Chair in this position potentially provides a link to Council and can also help to overcome impasse or bring the issue back to the full Council to explain why impasse was reached. S/he would not have a vote or a voice, but would be an observer and be available to answer questions or assist with moderation in case of conflict. We currently have Council members on the SSC which provides that link, but that will not necessarily be the case in the future. Chat excerpt: - Maxim Alzoba: positive identifiction is not a failure , it is a procedure Maxim Alzoba: I mean an identification of a conflict Erika Mann: Monitoring role, why not Marika Konings: without full consensus it is not able to put forward any recommendations to the GNSO Council (as currently written in the charter) Osvaldo Novoa: I agree totally with Maxim, a conflict in an SSC selection is a good information on the candidates to the Council. That is better than selecting a candidate we are not all confortable with. - One member noted that where SSC members had conflicts of interest in the past, we successfully navigated this by selecting alternates. - Members agreed that if the SSC decides to recommend staying with the full consensus model and decides to pass the issue back to the Council if consensus is not reached, this mechanism should be spelled out in the charter. - Staff input: The charter is not explicit about what happens if there is conflict among members within the SSC. The charter only specifies that the SSC will submit recommendations by full consensus. It can be difficult or sensitive for the group to communicate how or why it did not achieve full consensus. It may not be a good idea to be explicit in the charter regarding the issue, as it might be helpful to have flexibility if this situation occurs. - One member pointed out that it may not be damaging to surface information about who is dissenting, as each member is acting as a representative of an SG/C. If members could provide information to Council about a dissenting opinion, this would give the Council an opportunity to see more of the big picture. - It was also pointed out that the results of polls within the SSC could potentially be shared with Council as part of the report if consensus is impossible. Chat excerpt: Maxim Alzoba: score is always subjective, as I understand , so different scores for candidates is something expected Maxim Alzoba: +1 for drafting the process Marika Konings: you could say something 'in case no full consensus is achieved, the SSC will inform the GNSO Council accordingly providing the details as necessary and agreed by the SSC as to why it was not possible to achieve full consensus' - In addition to proposed language in the charter, it may be helpful to provide internal steps for the SSC to follow in this situation - Members on the call support maintaining a full consensus model - SSC members on the call support including a Chair of Vice-Chair to participate as an ex-officio member of the SSC. - Members on the call support drafting language for a process to follow if full consensus is not possible and proposing language to include in the Charter. Chat excerpt: Maxim Alzoba: some qualifications might seem differently from different points of view (like some person's experience looks 5 for a Registry, but might look differently for a Lawer) frederic guillemaut: yes Erika Mann: I like full consensus as the main approach Maxim Alzoba: including Chair might be a good idea, if it is allowed by GNSO Council rules Erika Mann: Got it, yes, I like this frederic guillemaut: it could be a 'plan b'. so yes Deliverables and Timeframes - No objections among members on the call to linking in the Charter to the draft standard process document (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64077672/DRAFT%20GNSO%20St…) Membership Criteria - Suggestion to make language more consistent in bullets regarding membership criteria. The current text reads: “The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members (not including the ex-officio members), appointed as follows: - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House; - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency; - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and, - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.” (underline added by staff to highlight discrepancy) - Is there a downside of selecting a representative who is not a member? - From a staff perspective, this is up to the SG/C to determine who should be a representative. The assumption is that SG/Cs would pick someone from their membership or community, but it may not be necessary to explicitly state this. Chat excerpt: Marika Konings: you could argue that SG/Cs are representative bodies so they could determine who would represent them best, while nom com appointees serve as individuals frederic guillemaut: yes - Suggested edit supported by members on the call: Change "One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency " to "One member appointed respectively by each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency.” The purpose of this edit is to make language regarding SG/C selections consistent. Formation, Staffing, and Organization - Members on the call generally supported clarifying language that if a person misses a call that they don't need to recuse themselves, but that they do need to do so if they are conflicted for a particular appointment or if they are planning a prolonged absence. Committee Formation, Dependencies, and Dissolution - There appeared to be general support among members on the call to consider April 2017 through AGM 2017 a ramp-up period, with the term of members officially beginning at the AGM 2017. The first term for members will run from the AGM 2017 to AGM 2018, with the option to renew for one term for a total of two consecutive terms served. 4. AOB - None Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

2 1

Proposed agenda - SSC meeting - 15 December 2017
by Emily Barabas Dec. 15, 2017

Dec. 15, 2017

Dear SSC members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the SSC meeting scheduled for tomorrow 15 December 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Proposed agenda: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Membership Update, Leadership Confirmation 3. Discussion of Charter Review Document 4. AOB For agenda item 3, we will be discussing this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c0NllDbjSFap0KR9s61a8uXJoH78FqLtBTOgahL… Please review the document and add your comments prior to the call. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

4 3

Re: [Gnso-ssc] Draft SSC Charter Review document
by Renata Aquino Ribeiro Dec. 15, 2017

Dec. 15, 2017

Dear all, I'm in agreement with the observations of Chair and Vice-Chair - keeping the full consensus and a delay on the candidates announcement Apologies but I won't be at the meeting tomorrow I'll try to catch up to any further developments Thank you

1 0

Re: [Gnso-ssc] Draft SSC Charter Review document
by Emily Barabas Dec. 13, 2017

Dec. 13, 2017

Dear SSC members, Gentle reminder – the next SSC call will take place this Friday at 14:00 UTC. Please read the SSC charter review document and add your comments and suggestions prior to the call: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c0NllDbjSFap0KR9s61a8uXJoH78FqLtBTOgahL…. An agenda for the call will be shared soon. Kind regards, Emily On 07/12/17 22:29, "Gnso-ssc on behalf of Marika Konings" <gnso-ssc-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: Thanks Renate for that suggestion. Here is the google doc link so you can all add your comments / suggestions: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…. If everyone else is fine with your suggestion to try and find a time next week Thursday or Friday, staff will go ahead and prepare a doodle poll. Best regards, Marika On 12/7/17, 15:19, "Gnso-ssc on behalf of Renata Aquino Ribeiro" <gnso-ssc-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of raquino(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hi Thanks for sending this charter with suggested edits. Can I suggest we register our edits in a Google Docs? Another suggestion: can we close poll next Tuesday and do the meeting on Thursday or Friday? It's just that not only 18th is the approaching holidays, it is also IGF week and several of ICANN will be in activities there. Thanks On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > We have one more task to complete review of the SSC charter. It would be > great to complete this before the end of the year. Attached is a draft > review of the charter that staff helpfully prepared. > Maxim and I have added our edits and concerns. > Please review and and your thoughts to the document. I will have staff send > out a doodle poll for the week of December 18th. I know this is close to > the holidays but I am hoping we can make headway on the charter. > > Thanks all, > > Susan > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ssc mailing list > Gnso-ssc(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc

1 0

Fwd: [Ext] Draft SSC Charter Review document
by Susan Kawaguchi Dec. 11, 2017

Dec. 11, 2017

Hello All, We have one more task to complete review of the SSC charter. It would be great to complete this before the end of the year. Attached is a draft review of the charter that staff helpfully prepared. Maxim and I have added our edits and concerns. Please review and and your thoughts to the document. I will have staff send out a doodle poll for the week of December 18th. I know this is close to the holidays but I am hoping we can make headway on the charter. Thanks all, Susan

4 6

REMINDER: Doodle poll: SSC meeting
by Emily Barabas Dec. 11, 2017

Dec. 11, 2017

Dear SSC members, If you have not yet done so already, please take a moment to fill out this Doodle poll for the next SSC meeting: https://doodle.com/poll/qysnwf5ditg8be6k Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday 7 December 2017 at 22:50 To: "gnso-ssc(a)icann.org" <gnso-ssc(a)icann.org> Subject: Doodle poll: SSC meeting Dear SSC members, Please fill out this Doodle poll to help us schedule the next SSC meeting: https://doodle.com/poll/qysnwf5ditg8be6k . Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Doodle poll: SSC meeting
by Emily Barabas Dec. 7, 2017

Dec. 7, 2017

Dear SSC members, Please fill out this Doodle poll to help us schedule the next SSC meeting: https://doodle.com/poll/qysnwf5ditg8be6k . Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Standing Selection Committee - GAC Liaison role
by Susan Kawaguchi Oct. 16, 2017

Oct. 16, 2017

Hello, On behalf of the Standing Selection Committee please see the attached motion the SSC is submitting to the Council to select Julf Helsingius as the Liaison to the GAC. After considerable review and discussion the SSC agreed with full consensus on Julf as the candidate for this role. Best regards, Susan Kawaguchi Chair of SSC

2 1

Confirmation of ranking and motion for review
by Marika Konings Oct. 10, 2017

Oct. 10, 2017

Dear All, I am happy to report that no objections have been noted and support have been expressed by all those that were not able to make the call (note, Carlos expressed his support for going ahead as proposed in an off-list message). As discussed, you’ll find attached for your review a draft motion. Please provide any comments / edits you may have at the latest by Friday of this week so that Susan is able to submit the motion in time for the motion and document deadline for the GNSO Council meeting at ICANN60. Best regards, Marika From: <gnso-ssc-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 14:01 To: "gnso-ssc(a)icann.org" <gnso-ssc(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ssc] Notes, action items & consensus call Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. For those not on the call today, please indicate by Monday 9 October COB whether you support or do not support the proposed ranking of the candidates for the GNSO Liaison to the GAC role, namely: 1) Julf, 2) Osvaldo, 3) Paul. Thanks, Marika Notes from SSC meeting on 5 October 2017 1. Roll Call/SOI 2. Review survey results * See survey results circulated via email (https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-KZRSQJD78/) * Julf came out as the lead candidates on all questions, with Osvaldo in second place and Paul in third. * All but two SSC members filled out the survey. * Julf is also endorsed by RrSG, BC, RySG and NCSG * IPC is very supportive of Paul Rosenzweig as a candidate - might be worth thinking outside of the traditional gammit of candidates? This is not a role that may be suitable for newcomers. For other types of appointments it is definitely important to encourage newcomers. * Important to take into account the objective of this role: The GNSO liaison to the GAC (hereafter “the Liaison”) will be primarily responsible for providing timely updates to the GAC on GNSO policy development activities in order to complement the existing notification processes as well answering questions in relation to these (GNSO) activities that GAC members may have. Furthermore, the Liaison will be responsible for providing the GNSO Council with regular updates on progress, including on GAC activities, specifically in so far as these relate to issues of interest to the GNSO. The objective of the liaison mechanism, in combination with some of the other mechanisms that the CG is exploring, as well as existing early engagement tools, will be to facilitate effective early engagement of the GAC as well as generally assist with flow of information between the GAC and the GNSO. In addition to these existing engagement tools, regular co-ordination calls are to be scheduled between the GNSO Liaison to the GAC and the GAC Secretariat to ascertain that all the relevant information has been received by the GAC and progress is being made, following which a regular status update is provided by the Liaison to the GNSO Council. * Three good candidates, but level of support is different. * Lori to consult with IPC factoring input and discussions today, but also consider how close nr 1 and 2 are. Are people wedded to Julf or is there also willingness to consider #2 candidate? * Considering asking those that haven’t completed the poll yet to do so now, but it may bias the responses? * Also note the timeline as outlined in the call for volunteers: The SSC will review the applications received and rank these taking into account the skills and experience required as outlined in this call for volunteers by 6 October 2016; Based on the outcome of the ranking process, the SSC will contact the nr 1 candidate to confirm the proposed selection by 11 October 2016 and confirm that the candidate is still available; the SSC will submit its recommendation to the GNSO Council in the form of a motion for confirmation of GNSO Liaison to the GAC to the GNSO Council by 16 October 2017 at the latest. There may be some flexibility here but the ‘final’ deadline is the motion and document deadline for ICANN60 which is 16 October 2017. * Staff to prepare draft motion for SSC consideration. Motion to include appreciation and recognition for the 3 very good candidates. * IPC support the rankings and do not object to Julf and is very pleased that their concerns are noted and will be considered for future positions. * Consider for future selection processes whether to interview the candidates. * All those on the call supported the ranking as resulting from the poll (1. Julf, 2. Osvaldo, 3. Paul). Action item #1: Staff to prepare draft motion for SSC review (name of proposed candidate to be filled out once agreement has been received) Action item #2: Staff to share results from the call with the mailing list and request those that were not able to attend whether they have any objections to the proposed ranking (1. Julf, 2. Osvaldo, 3. Paul). Deadline for feedback is Monday 9 October (23:59 US time). Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

3 2

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from GNSO Standing Selection Committee call on 5 October 2017 at 19:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

Dear all, Please find below the mp3, attendance, Adobe Connect recording and chat for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee held on 5 October 2017 at 19:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ssc-05oct17-en.mp3 AC recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8sjj26931a/<https://participate.icann.org/p8sjj26931a/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=896f95e112d5b2ad…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ssc/ Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/dolEB Attendees: Maxim Alzoba Susan Kawaguchi Lori Schulman Frederic Guillemaut Tony Holmes Apologies: Renata Aquino Ribeiro Rafik Dammak Emily Barabas (staff) ICANN staff: Marika Konings Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 5 October 2017 Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the GNSO Standing Selection Committee meeting on Thursday, 5 October 2017 at 19:00 UTC. Nathalie Peregrine:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Guillemaut frederic:good evening ! Maxim Alzoba:Hello All Susan Kawaguchi:Hello! Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome all! Lori Schulman:I dont hear anything Nathalie Peregrine:Coulc you hear me, Lori? Lori Schulman:now I hear you Nathalie Peregrine:Lori, I have had hard muted you as your microphone was open and causing background noise Maxim Alzoba:Carlos Maxim Alzoba:was the replacement Lori Schulman:my headset is not working. I am logging out and back in to engage headset Nathalie Peregrine:Lori, if you provide a phone number, we can dial out to you, if you would rather. Lori Schulman:I am in Lori Schulman:But now can hear. Yes, Please dial out to +1-917-364-1465 Lori Schulman:I mean I can't hear. Lori Schulman:Please dial out. +1-917-364-1465 Nathalie Peregrine:dialing out to you now Maxim Alzoba:as I understand we have majority of numbers in favour of Julf Marika Konings:FYI, only 2 SSC members did not fill out the survey (Carlos - replacement and Poncelet) Maxim Alzoba:Q9 - also he is the candidate with support of 3 SGs Guillemaut frederic:+ Guillemaut frederic:+1 Maxim Alzoba:Could we send an e-mail to Poncelet and Carlos to ask if they disaree with the results? Maxim Alzoba:I hear Lori Marika Konings:Julf was also endorsed by the NCSG Maxim Alzoba:With NCSG it is 4 Marika Konings:NCSG endorsed two candidates: Paul and Julf Maxim Alzoba:as I understand qualifications required experience and devotion (in matter of time and participation) Marika Konings:as a reminder the qualifications and expertise criteria were developed jointly by the GNSO and the GAC Lori Schulman:Same here. IPC leadership has given me instructions Tony Holmes:No candidates came to the ISPCP - of course we know Osvaldo very well as one of ours, and most of us know Jolf well Lori Schulman:If not Paul then IPC supports Osvaldo Lori Schulman:IPC has ranked the candidates Marika Konings:note that the SSC is expected to reach full consensus on its decision Marika Konings:(although I am not clear whether Lori is objecting to the lead candidate or whether she is just expressing her preference?) Guillemaut frederic:RrSG also chose Julf Lori Schulman:I am objecting to Julf Lori Schulman:on behalf of IPC Tony Holmes:I beleive this role is too important for fresh blood unless they are very well ranked against the agreed criteria Maxim Alzoba:he will have to start from the very beginning without learning curve Maxim Alzoba:RySG opinion took into account opinion of RySG GNSO Council (and their experience) Maxim Alzoba:* reps Tony Holmes:thats the point- fresh blood to the Council and this role is about Council - GAC relationships and requires that experience Marika Konings:Do note that one of the requirements (as jointly agreed by the GNSO and GAC) is: "Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO" Tony Holmes:I agree with Lori's sentiments regarding other appointments Maxim Alzoba:Do we know in which PDPs Paul participated, beyond the mentioned one? Marika Konings:I believe he only participated in the CCWG, not a PDP? Marika Konings:It may also be helpful to remind everyone of the main objective of this role: The GNSO liaison to the GAC (hereafter “the Liaison”) will be primarily responsible for providing timely updates to the GAC on GNSO policy development activities in order to complement the existing notification processes as well answering questions in relation to these (GNSO) activities that GAC members may have. Furthermore, the Liaison will be responsible for providing the GNSO Council with regular updates on progress, including on GAC activities, specifically in so far as these relate to issues of interest to the GNSO. The objective of the liaison mechanism, in combination with some of the other mechanisms that the CG is exploring, as well as existing early engagement tools, will be to facilitate effective early engagement of the GAC as well as generally assist with flow of information between the GAC and the GNSO. In addition to these existing engagement tools, regular co-ordination calls are to be scheduled between the GNSO Marika Konings:Liaison to the GAC and the GAC Secretariat to ascertain that all the relevant information has been received by the GAC and progress is being made, following which a regular status update is provided by the Liaison to the GNSO Council. Marika Konings:sorry, it got cut. If it is helpful I can put up the call for volunteers and criteria. Maxim Alzoba:Can we recommend to have apprentice like position? Maxim Alzoba:so the second in like can replace the first one? Maxim Alzoba:in case he is ill or something? Lori Schulman:Thank you for the context. Marika Konings:that is not something that is currently foreseen Tony Holmes:I would caution against an 'apprentice' approach - that suggests later election for that post Maxim Alzoba:I'm just thinking Maxim Alzoba:this idea is not discussed with RySG, it is my own idea Tony Holmes:In this election we have 3 very good candidates which makes the choice difficult Nathalie Peregrine:Marika is experiencing connectivity issues (electricity cut) but is still following on the audio bridge. Susan Kawaguchi:Thanks for letting us know Nathalie Lori Schulman:old hand Lori Schulman:i am on mute. seeking counsel from IPC Leaders re: consensus driven decision Lori Schulman:I will say that there is strong sentiment that Paul or Osvaldo would be stronger choice. Maxim Alzoba:I think we need to ask them via e-mail to vote (so we have two voters more)? Lori Schulman:NPOC I think Maxim Alzoba:in SOI it is NPOC Maxim Alzoba:Are we suggested to come back to our SGs for additional guidance? Lori Schulman:Is the IPC the only one with a "no" vote? Maxim Alzoba:I think we need those two voters Lori Schulman:I see that there is no path to consensus for Paul. Is there one for Osvaldo? Lori Schulman:Julf is also coming off council. Lori Schulman:Is Osvaldo still on? Lori Schulman:I don't remember. Nathalie Peregrine:16 October Motions and Documents Due for GNSO Council Meeting at ICANN Public Meeting Abu Dhabi Tony Holmes:If you are asking is Osvaldo still interested - then yes Maxim Alzoba:we need two votes more for proper reviwe Maxim Alzoba:review Lori Schulman:if all on the call vote now and reach consensus are done or do we still need 2 votes? Maxim Alzoba:another option is to ask their support/denial of the current results Maxim Alzoba:I have time Maxim Alzoba:and Poncelet Tony Holmes:No objection Maxim Alzoba:as I understand it is a position of a well experienced messenger who can speek both GNSO and GAC languages to ensure "translation" Tony Holmes:We should also express the view that we were thankful to have 3 very good candidates - can we include that recognition in the motion? Nathalie Peregrine:Please remember to state your names before speaking Nathalie Peregrine:thanks! Lori Schulman:Ok. IPC support the rankings and do not object to Julf and we are very pleased that our concerns are noted and will be considered for future positions. Julf is qualified. We are ok with the outcome. Guillemaut frederic:Thank you Lori Tony Holmes:Well chaired Susan - thanks Guillemaut frederic:Consensus ;-) Tony Holmes:agree Monday latest Maxim Alzoba:Monday 23.59 US time? Marika Konings:what is that in UTC? ;-) Maxim Alzoba:it is the latest bit of monday ... if we are not talking about Hawaii] Tony Holmes:depends which US time :-) Maxim Alzoba:coast closest to Hawaii Maxim Alzoba:LA time Lori Schulman:I think we should have talked to the candidates. Lori Schulman:the position is that important Maxim Alzoba:it was good discussion Tony Holmes:good point Lori Guillemaut frederic:interviews next time ? Lori Schulman:yes, I think certain positions merit interviews Lori Schulman:this one does Maxim Alzoba:and talking to candidates we needed that at least once in the past, and most probably this time Guillemaut frederic:we should add that to the charter ! Tony Holmes:thanks all Lori Schulman:ciao Maxim Alzoba:bye all

2 1