- Gnso-ssc - lists.icann.org

Your input needed - proposed SSC agreements
by Marika Konings April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

Dear All, Following the SSC call today I would hereby like to share the tentative agreements that those on the call reached based on the review of the survey results (see also the notes and survey results which were circulated earlier today): 1. Proposed agreement #1: Recommend the following three candidates (in no particular order) for GNSO endorsement for the RDS Review Team with a guaranteed seat: 1) Susan Kawaguchi, 2) Erika Mann and 3) Stephanie Perrin 2. Proposed agreement #2: Recommend the following four candidates, in the following order, for GNSO endorsement for the RDS Review Team for any additional slots that may be available for consideration by the SO/AC Chairs: 4) Volker Greimann, 5) Marc Anderson, 6) Stefania Milan, 7) Timothy Chen You are now all requested, and especially those that were not able to attend, to indicate your support or lack thereof for these proposed agreements. As a reminder, the top three ranked candidates will automatically get a seat on the RDS Review Team while the candidates ranked 4-7 may be considered by the SO/AC Chairs for addition to the review team should seats remain available and there is a need to add additional members to ensure diversity. Please respond to this message as soon as possible. Your feedback will determine whether or not a call is needed tomorrow. To facilitate a determination on whether a call is needed, please fill out the following doodle poll: https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/crcyit68qkbvgmwp. We will keep the slot that is currently scheduled for Monday 10 April at 13.00 UTC to allow for further discussion, if needed, regardless of whether the call tomorrow goes ahead or not. In parallel, staff will start work on a draft motion that would capture the SSC recommendations to the GNSO Council which can be submitted once the SSC reaches agreement on its recommendations. Thank you, Marika 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<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

8 7

Mp3, AC Recording, AC Chat and attendance GNSO Standing Selection Committee 5 April 2017
by Nathalie Peregrine April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3 for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee held on 5 April 2017 at 13:00 UTC Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ssc-05apr17-en.mp3 AC recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1fr3q3t4m8/<https://participate.icann.org/p1fr3q3t4m8/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=adafe81581d64faa…> 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/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aL-RAw Attendees: Poncelet Illelji, Frederic Guilemaut, Maxim Alzoba, Julf Helsingius, Osvaldo Novoa, Hibah Kamal-Grayson (temporary alternate for Susan Kawaguchi) Apologies: Renate Ribeira Aquino Lori Schulman ICANN staff: Marika Konings Emily Barabas 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 April 2017 Nathalie Peregrine: (4/5/2017 14:37) Dear all, welcome to the GNSO Standing Selection committee call on April 5th 2017 Nathalie Peregrine: (14:54) Agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Maxim Alzoba: (14:56) Hello All Maxim Alzoba: (14:56) please grant me mic rights in Adobe Frédéric Guillemaut: (14:56) Hello All, Nathalie Peregrine: (14:56) Done Maxim! Welcome all! Frédéric Guillemaut: (14:57) ok, i just saw that i got the rights. Maxim Alzoba: (14:57) I will mostly write Frédéric Guillemaut: (14:57) i have no hardware probleme today, this is too simple. I will try to break something Maxim Alzoba: (14:58) in the chat ... the background noise will be on my phone too Maxim Alzoba: (14:58) Ok, will be back in 4 minutes. need to change the location Julf Helsingius: (15:00) Well, with this turnout it might be an efficient meeting... Osvaldo Novoa: (15:01) Hello all Maxim Alzoba: (15:03) back online Maxim Alzoba: (15:03) one second Julf Helsingius: (15:03) yes,but quite a lot of background noise Maxim Alzoba: (15:05) reconnected mic. should be less noise Nathalie Peregrine 2: (15:05) Hibal Kamal-Grayson's SOI: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Julf Helsingius: (15:08) I think we have more than enough candidates to consider as it is Osvaldo Novoa: (15:08) Looking at the other candidates would let us see if the gender and geographinc diversity are as required or if we should make any adjustment Julf Helsingius: (15:09) Should we first see if we have a diversity issue? Nathalie Peregrine 2: (15:09) Poncelet Illeleji has joined the AC room Maxim Alzoba: (15:11) Ok about support confirmations to be later. Osvaldo Novoa: (15:12) I don´t think we have a diversity issue, on the contrary, I think we have a good group of candidates, but that might change in the whole Review Team once we see who the other SO/AC choose. Julf Helsingius: (15:12) That is why we'll have candidates 4-7 Julf Helsingius: (15:13) Sure! Poncelet Ileleji: (15:13) Very true @Julf Maxim Alzoba: (15:13) 7 is good number for 3 +4 alternatives Maxim Alzoba: (15:14) Mathematical question, why two 1 top places? Frédéric Guillemaut: (15:14) dealying whois works for one month is not a big issue, as hte whole thing has been lasting for a long time ;-) Marika Konings: (15:14) @Maxim - identical score :-) Osvaldo Novoa: (15:14) I support Julf sugestion Maxim Alzoba: (15:15) it is choice of places, then some additional qualification should be brought to select the only top one Julf Helsingius: (15:15) I don't think the order of the top 3 matters Maxim Alzoba: (15:15) on the other hand 1-1-2 is ok for 3top ones Maxim Alzoba: (15:16) or do we mean 1-1-3 Maxim Alzoba: (15:16) My concern is ... about the technical expertise of those top3 Poncelet Ileleji: (15:16) 4 to 7 Julf Helsingius: (15:17) we seem to be OK with the top 3 from all aspects Poncelet Ileleji: (15:17) What technical EXpertise Maxim Maxim Alzoba: (15:17) experience from the Engineering point of view with DNS system Maxim Alzoba: (15:18) not just legal and operational Poncelet Ileleji: (15:18) Yes Julf I say Top 3, 4 to 7 going on Ranking Osvaldo Novoa: (15:18) I think so, the top three are unanimously choosed. We should study the ranking of the next four Poncelet Ileleji: (15:18) Yes Marika based on Q5 Maxim Alzoba: (15:19) I suggest that we see the voting as a draft attempt ... due to incorrect pick of the 3 candidates, not relevant to GNSO Poncelet Ileleji: (15:20) Why will you say incorrect pick Maxim, I think folks voted based on data they had Maxim Alzoba: (15:20) those persons do not belong to the title f the Maxim Alzoba: (15:20) voting Julf Helsingius: (15:20) and those 3 are in the bottom 4 anyway Maxim Alzoba: (15:21) we do not know the composition - so they influenced the score Julf Helsingius: (15:21) I support going by Q5 Osvaldo Novoa: (15:21) +1 Poncelet Ileleji: (15:21) Thanks Julf Q5 +1 Julf Helsingius: (15:23) If we drop them it won't change the result Osvaldo Novoa: (15:23) There is no difference in the result if we go by Q5 or Q3 and Q4, we have the same 7 candidates. ¿Am I wrong? Osvaldo Novoa: (15:23) Sorry, there is a difference in position 7 Julf Helsingius: (15:24) Yes, Remmy vs. Timothy Poncelet Ileleji: (15:24) This Q5 will apply for 4 to 7 not top 3 which qualify Just to stating my earlier take Frédéric Guillemaut: (15:24) yes, number 7 is differetn, and to me timothy cvhen was in the top 3. i would push its application to be at least in the 7 Osvaldo Novoa: (15:25) I think Timothy is a better candidate than Remmy. Maxim Alzoba: (15:25) the voting was clearly called GNSO Candidates Julf Helsingius: (15:26) I wonder if some people supported Remmy for geographical diversity Maxim Alzoba: (15:26) Geo divercity is important from legal perspective Poncelet Ileleji: (15:26) Maxim I felt we had the schedule prior to the survey you could have raised this then thats my opinion Maxim Alzoba: (15:27) I did it Maxim Alzoba: (15:27) the incorrect voting has already raised concerns Julf Helsingius: (15:27) Yes, Maxim did, but I don't see how it would change the result Osvaldo Novoa: (15:28) I agree with Marika. It is up to the GNSO to decide who to support. We are not sure who they are right now Poncelet Ileleji: (15:28) I its not going to change anything Marika, we stand by the result Maxim Alzoba: (15:28) I have a question on GEO diversity Frédéric Guillemaut: (15:29) i saw that first vote as a draft, it is true. to be used to finalise our choice afterwards. So i guess we will have to re vote anyway. Julf Helsingius: (15:29) I was hoping teh next vote would be "is this list OK or not"? Osvaldo Novoa: (15:30) LAC will not be represented but unluckily his qualifications don't justify selecting him. Poncelet Ileleji: (15:30) If we use that criteria Maxim, then I as well talk of Remmy from Africa, but I think this should not be used as a yardstick to me Osvaldo Novoa: (15:31) +1 Maxim Alzoba: (15:31) someone might be required from other reasons, at least at alternative places... to be able to summon those ... but it is secondary ... so if we think that it is not that important now - I will drop it Maxim Alzoba: (15:32) I suggest we have additional questions to top 11 about texhnical experience Poncelet Ileleji: (15:32) I want to propose Q5 for 4 to 7 I need this be seconded Please Julf Helsingius: (15:32) I think we should provide the ranking as non-binding guidance Julf Helsingius: (15:32) seconding Osvaldo Novoa: (15:32) Any way the agreements of this call should be ratify or not by the rest of the group. We can propose a confirmation to the whole of the group and see if we reach a consensus, it would be like a re-vote. Maxim Alzoba: (15:33) no gender diversity in top 3 though ... but it is balanced by 4-7 places Poncelet Ileleji: (15:33) Yes Maxim its balanced by 4 to 7 Osvaldo Novoa: (15:35) We were asked to priorize the candidates Maxim Alzoba: (15:35) I support sending the list of 7 Julf Helsingius: (15:35) I support sending the 7 Frédéric Guillemaut: (15:36) yes Osvaldo Novoa: (15:37) I think that the only difference is in number 7 position Julf Helsingius: (15:37) Can we agree on 1-6v to start with? Hibah Kamal-Grayson: (15:37) I'm fine with having four additional names without ranking them, but I defer to others if people feel strongly about ranking 4-7 Marika Konings: (15:39) The current ranking of #4 - 7 = 4) Volker Greimann, 5) Marc Anderson, 6) Stefania Milan, 7) Timothy Chen Maxim Alzoba: (15:39) Q5 is more important, given that support comes not from our opinion but from Chairs Osvaldo Novoa: (15:39) i am ok with this ranking Hibah Kamal-Grayson: (15:39) I am ok with it as well Frédéric Guillemaut: (15:39) i am ok with tese four people Frédéric Guillemaut: (15:39) timothy marc volker stefania Poncelet Ileleji: (15:39) Am okay with the ranking Marika Julf Helsingius: (15:42) I was hoping we could avoid the call tomorrow Julf Helsingius: (15:42) (as it is really inconvenient for me) Marika Konings: (15:43) if you can all agree on the list, there is no need for a call (but no pressure :-) Frédéric Guillemaut: (15:43) this is a good list i guess. Julf Helsingius: (15:43) I am fine with the list Julf Helsingius: (15:43) Then there is no point in the call tomorrow Frédéric Guillemaut: (15:43) i ll send it today, will wait for the return, Poncelet Ileleji: (15:43) Its Feasible to me Marika Julf Helsingius: (15:43) if people can't commit Maxim Alzoba: (15:44) question about mp3 record/chat/transcript Julf Helsingius: (15:44) I guess we are in trouble if someone comes back with a "no way" on Monday Maxim Alzoba: (15:45) I do not think that hurry is more important then proper review Maxim Alzoba: (15:46) it would be great to have it as soon as possible Nathalie Peregrine 2: (15:46) Recordings and notes will be circulated under a couple of hours after the end of the meeitng. Transcript will be available in the next 8 - 10 hours. Julf Helsingius: (15:46) Is the transcript for general circulation? Nathalie Peregrine 2: (15:46) The transcription is posted on the GNSO master calendar: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou… Julf Helsingius: (15:47) Thanks! Julf Helsingius: (15:47) Just good to keep in mind if we discuss individual people Nathalie Peregrine 2: (15:47) And also on the meeting wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Maxim Alzoba: (15:48) what is the dtae /UTC time of when we need to say - yes we need tomorrow call/no we do not need it Maxim Alzoba: (15:48) ? Maxim Alzoba: (15:49) doodle poll finishing by that time? Maxim Alzoba: (15:49) with yes/not/comment? Maxim Alzoba: (15:51) or to send replacement if they can not attend Julf Helsingius: (15:51) One possible answer might be "can't get answer in time" Maxim Alzoba: (15:51) it is no/no/no :) Frédéric Guillemaut: (15:51) thank you all, Osvaldo Novoa: (15:51) Thank you very much, I really productive meeting. Bye Julf Helsingius: (15:51) Thanks, Marika! Maxim Alzoba: (15:51) Bye all Frédéric Guillemaut: (15:52) bye Poncelet Ileleji: (15:52) Thank You Marika, and Bye all

1 0

Notes and Action Items - GNSO Standing Selection Committee Meeting - 5 April 2017
by Emily Barabas April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. Marika will shortly send out an email detailing next steps and a Doodle poll about the meeting tentatively scheduled for tomorrow. Kind regards, Emily --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: 1. Welcome - As a reminder, the SSC operates by full consensus. As the full group is not in attendance on today's call, any outcomes of this call must be confirmed with the full group. - For this nomination, staff has requested that this group considers those candidates who have requested GNSO endorsement. Therefore, only those seeking GNSO endorsement are listed in the survey. The SSC may choose to consider those candidates who requested endorsement from other SOs and ACs. - The GNSO Council has asked SSC to provide recommendations in time for the 20 April meeting. The document deadline for the Council Meeting is 10 April. Once the GNSO Council receives list of endorsed candidates, they must consider the nominations and can choose to adopt them. The adopted list of candidates then goes to the SOs and ACs for consideration. The 25 April deadline is for candidates to be nominated from the different SOs and ACs. - If it is not possible to make these deadlines, the group may want to provide a rationale for requesting additional time. - The top three candidates automatically get a seat on the Review Team. The group may want to provide a ranking for candidates 4 through 7. - While the top three candidates are guaranteed slots, the others may also be considered, weighing for diversity and other considerations. 2. Review Survey Results - Survey results are based on scores to the following questions: -- Question 3: Based on the candidate's materials or your own personal experience, does the candidate appear to qualify as a GNSO endorsed candidate? -- Question 4: Does the candidate's application clearly demonstrate that the candidate has the necessary expertise and competence to do the work? -- Question 5: Based on your assessment of the responsibilities, skills, expertise and desired attributes as outlined in the call for volunteers, please rank these candidates in order of preference (1 being most preferred candidate, 14 being the least preferred candidate) 3. Confirm Next Steps & next meeting (if needed) - Suggestion: Put aside the top 3, as these are the clear top choices. Continue the conversation on ranking candidates 4 through 7 on this call, share on the mailing list to continue the conversation. If no consensus on the mailing list is reached, leverage the next scheduled meeting to work towards consensus. - Candidates 1-3: Susan Kawaguchi, Erika Mann, Stephanie Perrin - Candidates 4-7: 4) Volker Greimann, 5) Marc Anderson, 6) Stefania Milan, 7) Timothy Chen - Staff will send out notes, recordings, and summary email about the outcome of this call. - A call is tentatively scheduled for tomorrow. We will go ahead with this call unless there is clear agreement that there is no need to go ahead with this call. Staff will circulate a Doodle poll and will make a determination about whether to have a call by 13:00 UTC tomorrow. An additional call is scheduled for Monday in case further discussion is needed. - Staff will work on a draft motion in parallel.

1 0

Please participate - Evaluation Survey GNSO Candidates for RDS Review Team
by Marika Konings April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

Dear All, The Evaluation Survey for GNSO Candidates for the RDS Review Team is now live: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GNSORDSRT. Please complete the survey as soon as possible, but at the latest COB Tuesday 4 April so that the results can be aggregated for Wednesday’s SSC meeting. Prior to completing the survey, please make sure to review the candidate applications as well as the call for volunteers which outlines the responsibilities, skills & experience and desired attributes – see https://community.icann.org/x/6b-RAw. As there were no objections, the results, both aggregated as well as well as individual responses, will be shared public. Do take into account the potential sensitivity of individual comments as you fill out the survey. Best regards, Marika 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<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

3 5

For your review - survey results
by Marika Konings April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

Dear All, Thank you all for participating in the survey on such short notice. I am happy to report that all SSC members appointed to date provided their input (note, we are still waiting the appointment of one NCSG rep). Here you can find the aggregated results: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L2VBBBLB/. As some of you expressed concerns about sharing the individual scoring publicly, I have not made that information available at this stage. You may first want to come to agreement on how to handle that information (for example, if there is concern about sharing it publicly, maybe it could be shared on an individual basis between SSC members with the commitment that the information is not shared outside of the group?). To facilitate your review and discussion, I’ve also created the attached excel sheet in which I’ve aggregated the scores for Q3 and Q4 and ranked based on the survey results and also listed the ranking based on Q5. You will note that the top 6 on that basis is identical for Q3&4 and Q5, but there are some differences following that which you may need to discuss. I hope this is helpful. Talk to you all soon. Best regards, Marika 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<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

5 5

FW: RDS/WHOIS2 Review Applicantions
by Marika Konings April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the information requested concerning the scale used for the staff assessment of the applicants as well as those candidates for which the GNSO affiliation was not clear. Best regards, Marika From: Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 17:45 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: RDS/WHOIS2 Review Applicantions Marika, Here are the answers to the questions that the GNSO asked regarding the RDS/WHOIS2 candidates. 1. The scale we used to rate the applicant’s expertise was used to compared the expertise listed in the Call for Volunteers to what each applicant listed in their application. We looked at whether they had enough experience or were actively participating in RDS related working groups, before assessing the expertise they listed. Here is the scale that we used: · Meets All: 6/6 of the expertise criteria listed · Meets Most: 4-5/6 of the expertise criteria listed · Meets some: 1-3/6 of the expertise criteria listed 2. As these applicants reside in Asia we were not sure we could gather a response in sufficient time for the GNSO so we reviewed the applications posted on the wiki for any mention of their affiliation with the GNSO. Here is what we gathered: · Vignesh Pamu: he claims he participated in GNSO - Next Generation RDS PDP WG Face to Face Meeting (attended as Guest) and Thick WHOIS Implementation Review but does not appear as member or observer on both. · Pitinan Kooamornpatana mentioned participation within the GAC but none in GNSO, he is a member of Thai Generation Panel for the Label Generation Rootzone (LGR) for Thai Script, but I believe this is not part of GNSO. · Subham Charan clearly mentioned he has no ICANN experience. Conclusion: We determined that none of the applications appears to show any direct affiliation with the GNSO. I hope this meets the request from the GNSO. Sincerely, Karen Mulberry Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) ICANN

1 0

Reminder Re: Please participate - Evaluation Survey GNSO Candidates for RDS Review Team
by Marika Konings April 4, 2017

April 4, 2017

Reminder – please fill out the survey if you have not done so yet. Thank you to those that have already completed the survey. Best regards, Marika From: <gnso-ssc-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, April 3, 2017 at 17:56 To: "gnso-ssc(a)icann.org" <gnso-ssc(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ssc] Please participate - Evaluation Survey GNSO Candidates for RDS Review Team Dear All, The Evaluation Survey for GNSO Candidates for the RDS Review Team is now live: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GNSORDSRT[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>. Please complete the survey as soon as possible, but at the latest COB Tuesday 4 April so that the results can be aggregated for Wednesday’s SSC meeting. Prior to completing the survey, please make sure to review the candidate applications as well as the call for volunteers which outlines the responsibilities, skills & experience and desired attributes – see https://community.icann.org/x/6b-RAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. As there were no objections, the results, both aggregated as well as well as individual responses, will be shared public. Do take into account the potential sensitivity of individual comments as you fill out the survey. Best regards, Marika 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…>.

1 0

FW: RDS/WHOIS2 Review Applicantions
by Marika Konings April 4, 2017

April 4, 2017

Forwarding on behalf of James Bladel. Best regards, Marika From: Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, March 24, 2017 at 12:26 To: SO/AC Leadership List <SOAC-leaders(a)icann.org> Cc: "rds-whois2-staff(a)icann.org" <rds-whois2-staff(a)icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes(a)icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Subject: RDS/WHOIS2 Review Applicantions Dear SO/AC Leaders, This is to provide you with an update on the Registration Directory Services Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Call for Volunteers that closed on 20 March 2017. We are pleased to inform you that a total of 38 of applications were submitted for appointment to the RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team. Please note that: * 6 candidates seek ALAC’s endorsement, 7 the ccNSO’s, 4 the GAC’s and 14 the GNSO’s; * No candidate has indicated they are seeking a review team nomination from the ASO, RSSAC or SSAC; * 7 candidates have not indicated any SO/AC affiliation We invite you to review the RDS-WHOIS2-RT wiki page where all applications that have been submitted are documented - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63145857 With the objective of kicking off Review Team activities in May, we would like to suggest the following work plan for your consideration: * As soon as possible but we would like to receive your list of nominations for the Review Team, if possible they should be provided by no later than 25 April &#8211 Please send your list of nominated candidates to rds-whois2-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:rds-whois2-staff@icann.org>. * As the list of nominated candidates is being received from each SO and AC, the RDS Review Team wiki page will be updated to indicate those applicants who have been nominated. * We would like to arrange a call with the SO/AC leadership on either 25-26-27 April so that you can review the list of nominated applicants and confirm the selection of the RDS Review Team members. &#8211 To arrange this call we would like to invite you to confirm your availability via https://tinyurl.com/n4fkc9s by 31 March – 23:59 UTC so arrangements can be completed and everyone notified; * On or about 28 April – we would like to arrange for ICANN to issue an announcement on the confirmation of the RDS Review Team members and begin notifying those who were not selected of the option to participate in the work of the Review Team as an Observer. Should you have any comments on the above work plan, please advise at your earliest convenience so it may be adjusted accordingly. Attached to this email you will find a table of the applications received along with a scorecard based on the list of expertise noted in the Call for Volunteers and uses the information provided in each of the applications that were submitted for your use in considering each of the applicants. As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, Karen Mulberry Director, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) ICANN 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Phone: +1 424 353 9745

1 0

Re: [Gnso-ssc] For your review - RDS RT evaluation survey options
by Marika Konings April 4, 2017

April 4, 2017

All, so far the feedback is as follows: Preference for option 1: Julf, Frederick, Renata Preference for option 2: Poncelet Can you please weigh in as soon as possible so we are able to launch the survey with sufficient time before the next meeting? We will also need your feedback concerning how the results are shared. Renate has already indicated that she prefers the survey results, including individual responses to be shared publicly. Best regards, Marika From: <gnso-ssc-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 20:20 To: "gnso-ssc(a)icann.org" <gnso-ssc(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ssc] For your review - RDS RT evaluation survey options Dear All, Following on from the call today, staff has gone ahead and created two (for now) possible approaches for a survey to review the candidates for the RDS Review Team: · Option 1 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…> for a preview. This is a very straightforward approach which first asks two questions in relation to whether the candidate qualifies as a GNSO candidate (yes/no-don’t know) and whether the candidate has the necessary expertise and competence (yes/no-don’t know), followed by a ranking of the candidates. This approach is similar to the one used by the volunteers that reviewed the SSR2-RT candidates. · Option 2 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=3yLMDGyDuJTXv7WxGEXYmZTUiaAeDz3Z…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…> for a preview. This survey goes into a bit more detail as it asks to rank the candidates based on how the meet 1) the skills and expertise as outlined in the call for volunteers, and 2) the desired attributes as outlined in the call for volunteers. This option could be further refined by asking a ranking for each individual skill / expertise and/or desired attribute, but that would make the survey significantly longer and would also take you more time to complete. The aggregated score could be used to obtain an overall ranking based on the responses from all. Note that these two options are in preview mode – any responses will not be recorded. Please share with the list which approach has your preference and/or which modifications or alternative approaches should be added to this list of options. Once the SSC has agreed on an approach, you will also need to decide whether you intend to share the individual survey responses with the SSC or only the aggregated results as well as whether you intend to share these publicly. As noted on the call today, the charter foresees that “To facilitate its deliberations, the SSC may decide to conduct some or all of its deliberations in private, but if so, it is expected to provide a rationale with its recommendations”. We would like to ask you to share your feedback as soon as possible so that ideally the survey will be launched early next week to allow for review and discussion of the results during next week’s meeting (please remember to fill out the doodle poll that has been circulated by Nathalie). Best regards, Marika P.S. You will also find attached the updated summary document which now includes a column for gender.

6 9

Please respond: SSC meetings time and dates
by Nathalie Peregrine April 3, 2017

April 3, 2017

Dear all, So far the Doodle poll results for the three upcoming SSC meetings are as follow: Wed 5th April: 13:00 UTC (5 members) · Thursday 6th April: 16:00 UTC (7 members) · Monday 10th April: 13:00 UTC (6 members) Could you please look at the slots completed here? https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/tbvqv6fa8y48sfu2 The doodle is still open, so please feel free to go back in and edit your entries if your schedule has changed in the meantime. Ideally, of course, all members would be present on the calls, but we understand it is difficult. If you really cannot make the preferred slots, please indicate here on this thread whether you will be happy to catch up the call(s) with the recording and transcript and share your thoughts later via the mailing list. Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

2 3

For your review - RDS RT evaluation survey options
by Marika Konings April 3, 2017

April 3, 2017

Dear All, Following on from the call today, staff has gone ahead and created two (for now) possible approaches for a survey to review the candidates for the RDS Review Team: · Option 1 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY… for a preview. This is a very straightforward approach which first asks two questions in relation to whether the candidate qualifies as a GNSO candidate (yes/no-don’t know) and whether the candidate has the necessary expertise and competence (yes/no-don’t know), followed by a ranking of the candidates. This approach is similar to the one used by the volunteers that reviewed the SSR2-RT candidates. · Option 2 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=3yLMDGyDuJTXv7WxGEXYmZTUiaAeDz3Z… for a preview. This survey goes into a bit more detail as it asks to rank the candidates based on how the meet 1) the skills and expertise as outlined in the call for volunteers, and 2) the desired attributes as outlined in the call for volunteers. This option could be further refined by asking a ranking for each individual skill / expertise and/or desired attribute, but that would make the survey significantly longer and would also take you more time to complete. The aggregated score could be used to obtain an overall ranking based on the responses from all. Note that these two options are in preview mode – any responses will not be recorded. Please share with the list which approach has your preference and/or which modifications or alternative approaches should be added to this list of options. Once the SSC has agreed on an approach, you will also need to decide whether you intend to share the individual survey responses with the SSC or only the aggregated results as well as whether you intend to share these publicly. As noted on the call today, the charter foresees that “To facilitate its deliberations, the SSC may decide to conduct some or all of its deliberations in private, but if so, it is expected to provide a rationale with its recommendations”. We would like to ask you to share your feedback as soon as possible so that ideally the survey will be launched early next week to allow for review and discussion of the results during next week’s meeting (please remember to fill out the doodle poll that has been circulated by Nathalie). Best regards, Marika P.S. You will also find attached the updated summary document which now includes a column for gender.

7 9

REMINDER: Doodle poll: 3 SSC meeting dates, 5th, 6th and 10th April 2017
by Terri Agnew March 31, 2017

March 31, 2017

Dear all, As discussed on the call today, please find the below Doodle poll for three SSC meetings: on Wednesday 5th April, Thursday 6th April and Monday 10th April 2017. Doodle poll: https://doodle.com/poll/tbvqv6fa8y48sfu2 Please make sure to select at least 2 slots per day to ensure as many members make it to the calls. Thank you, Kind regards Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Doodle poll: 3 SSC meeting dates, 5th, 6th and 10th April 2017
by Nathalie Peregrine March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Dear all, As discussed on the call today, please find the below Doodle poll for three SSC meetings: on Wednesday 5th April, Thursday 6th April and Monday 10th April 2017. Doodle poll: https://doodle.com/poll/tbvqv6fa8y48sfu2 Please make sure to select at least 2 slots per day to ensure as many members make it to the calls. Thank you, Kind regards Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Mp3, AC Recording, AC Chat and attendance GNSO Standing Selection Committee 30 March 2017
by Nathalie Peregrine March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3 for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee held on 30 March 2017 at 16:00 UTC mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ssc-30mar17-en.mp3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailer.samanage.com_wf_…> AC recording: https://participate.icann.org/p867kz67a54/<https://participate.icann.org/p867kz67a54/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=adafe81581d64faa…> 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/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aL-RAw Attendees: Poncelet Illelji, Frederic Guilemaut, Maxim Alzoba, Julf Helsingius, Osvaldo Novoa, Susan Kawaguchi, Renate Ribeira Apologies: ICANN staff: Marika Konings Julie Hedlund Emily Barabas Nathalie Peregrine Glen de St Gery ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 30 March 2017 Nathalie Peregrine: (3/30/2017 17:38) Dear all, welcome to the first Standing Selection committee meeting on the 30th March 2017 Nathalie Peregrine: (17:38) Agenda meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Poncelet Ileleji: (17:48) Good Afternoon all Nathalie Peregrine: (17:49) Welcome Poncelet! Poncelet Ileleji: (17:51) thanks Nathalie Frederic Guillemaut: (17:56) Good afternoon, Bonjour Maxim Alzoba: (17:56) Good evening Maxim Alzoba: (17:57) Thanks! Nathalie Peregrine: (17:57) Welcome all! Julf Helsingius: (17:57) Good evening! Osvaldo Novoa: (17:58) Hello all Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:02) Hello all Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:04) Good Emily Barabas: (18:04) Hello all Emily Barabas: (18:05) I look forward to working with you Frederic Guillemaut: (18:05) working on my audio Frederic Guillemaut: (18:05) sorry, i can hear you, Frederic Guillemaut: (18:05) but not speak Nathalie Peregrine: (18:06) @ Frederic, to activate your AC audio, please click on the telephone icon at the top of the AC toolbar and choose the option to use your compuer microphone Nathalie Peregrine: (18:06) Alternatively, please refer to the calendar invitation, to join the audio bridge Poncelet Ileleji: (18:06) THanks Marika, Emily and Nathalie looking forward to working with other colleagues Frederic Guillemaut: (18:07) thank you, but this is more a hardware issue. Nathalie Peregrine: (18:08) @ Frederic, if you want to give me your phone number via private chat, we can dial out to you Frederic Guillemaut: (18:09) ill call youy Nathalie Peregrine: (18:10) Renata your audio is garbled, can you please dial into the bridge Julf Helsingius: (18:10) That is some pretty heavy breathing! Nathalie Peregrine: (18:10) We are trying to fix the issue Nathalie Peregrine: (18:11) Apologies for this. Maxim Alzoba: (18:11) I think we have alien invasion Poncelet Ileleji: (18:11) noted Nathalie Marika Konings: (18:11) I've disconnected thining it was my line, but it looks like the Alien is still there Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:11) do we have the phone to dial for brazil anyone? Julf Helsingius: (18:11) In cyberspace, nobody can hear you scream... Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:12) yes Maxim Alzoba: (18:12) we do hear Poncelet Ileleji: (18:12) Yes we can Julf Helsingius: (18:12) yes we can Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:12) hahaha julf Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:12) can I try again marika? Maxim Alzoba: (18:13) I think we have good geographical diversity Poncelet Ileleji: (18:16) Concurred Maxim Maxim Alzoba: (18:18) We might need to use reviews (like Doodle poll) with ranks and reasons Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:19) 3 seats and alternates Poncelet Ileleji: (18:19) Thanks Marika, I felt the email attached doc was very clear to me Maxim Alzoba: (18:21) Ok , that answers my question Marika Konings: (18:22) and not every review team may have candidates from a certain SG/C Maxim Alzoba: (18:25) another reason for alternatives - people tend to change plans e.t.c. , so someone needs to be available in short notice Poncelet Ileleji: (18:25) Yes Renata Nathalie Peregrine: (18:25) We can hear you. Poncelet Ileleji: (18:27) Well Noted Renata, on the gender info Maxim Alzoba: (18:27) we need to use weighted approach, so we need to rank them and to create something like matrix Maxim Alzoba: (18:28) with qualifications/wheights/persons Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:28) /gender Poncelet Ileleji: (18:28) Yes the matrix idea works, but I think Susan explained it clearly Maxim Alzoba: (18:28) +1 @Renata Maxim Alzoba: (18:29) region? Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:29) surely Maxim Alzoba: (18:30) co-chairs? Poncelet Ileleji: (18:31) Yes Co Chairs, I suggested Susan as one based on her role Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:31) +1 co-chairs Maxim Alzoba: (18:32) could we use + - for co-chairs? Maxim Alzoba: (18:32) icon to the right of the mic icon Frederic Guillemaut: (18:33) could we have a rotating chair, for each project ? Marika Konings: (18:34) @Frederic - that is up to the SSC to decide. It is definitely not prevented by the charter. Maxim Alzoba: (18:34) I think it is simpler to have two or three co-chairs, like it is done in RDS PDP Maxim Alzoba: (18:34) then two Poncelet Ileleji: (18:35) Renata I think with the numbers we need only two maximum based on the number in this group to me Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:35) facilitators? Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:36) I guess we have to follow charter on the name Poncelet Ileleji: (18:36) So colleagues can we move on the Co Chairs please Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:37) If we have even 3 co chairs, and they all have to recuse themselves, what would be the process? Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:38) so the suggestion is for us to appoint temporary alternatives always? Maxim Alzoba: (18:40) I am not sure that Chater have anything about replacing a Chair by other person Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:40) ok thanks Julf Helsingius: (18:40) Sure! Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:40) yes Maxim Alzoba: (18:40) ok Poncelet Ileleji: (18:41) Yes Marika am fine wiith you continue Maxim Alzoba: (18:46) Vatican style selections with closed doors and smoke :) Julf Helsingius: (18:47) Do we have a smoking policy? Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:48) sure it's for when you are done :) Maxim Alzoba: (18:51) Do we need to mark GNSO Council members with a special mark (I think at least one is in RDS Review pool :) Maxim Alzoba: (18:51) ? Frederic Guillemaut: (18:51) we have a list on line of gnso affiliated people Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:52) ok thanks marika Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:53) old hand sorry Marika Konings: (18:53) Can you still hear me? Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:53) no audio Poncelet Ileleji: (18:53) Yes we have except only the guy that listed NCUC/NPOC/NCSG as he is all to my knowledge Frederic Guillemaut: (18:53) may i speak .? Frederic Guillemaut: (18:53) ok i'll wait ;-) Marika Konings: (18:54) sorry, I am having audio issues Marika Konings: (18:54) am getting a dial out now Marika Konings: (18:54) Julf, please go ahead Julf Helsingius: (18:54) Did anyone hear me? Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:54) marika no audio Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:54) yes julf but very low volume and didn't understand very well Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:54) yes marika Emily Barabas: (18:54) yes Julf Helsingius: (18:54) OK Julf Helsingius: (18:54) yes Maxim Alzoba: (18:54) the last word was "on that ..." Nathalie Peregrine: (18:54) yes Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:55) julf you want to know how expertise criteria was determined? Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:55) can you repeat? Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:55) better now the audio julf Poncelet Ileleji: (18:55) No audio too for me, now its back Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:55) marika? Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:55) are you talking now? Poncelet Ileleji: (18:55) audio back Maxim Alzoba: (18:55) +1 yes/no works worse than wheighted approach Poncelet Ileleji: (18:56) hello Julf Helsingius: (18:56) OK! Thanks! Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:56) the call for the wg? Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:57) ah ok Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:57) wanting to volunteer is already a criteria met Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:57) i guess Marika Konings: (18:58) the link to the staff assessment document is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (18:58) yup Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (19:00) yes I can Maxim Alzoba: (19:00) I can Julf Helsingius: (19:00) I have 5 min max Frederic Guillemaut: (19:00) 10 minutes for me Osvaldo Novoa: (19:00) I can only continue for about 15 minutes Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (19:01) can we preserve the gender column on the briefing? Poncelet Ileleji: (19:01) Its tight time Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (19:01) i went through the resumes to do my column Poncelet Ileleji: (19:01) I think next Monday 4pm Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (19:01) on the spreadsheet Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (19:01) thank you Julf Helsingius: (19:02) "next monday" as in April 3 or 10? Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (19:02) a rubric Julf Helsingius: (19:02) "next week" is one of those wonderful cultural traps... Poncelet Ileleji: (19:03) 3rd Julf Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (19:03) i think we have to draw the rubric criteria - what is god? Maxim Alzoba: (19:04) the best of the best Maxim Alzoba: (19:04) with legal knowledge combined with tech knowledge Poncelet Ileleji: (19:04) We do it Collectively so we have a consensus its easier after neccesary consultation if need be with our community Frederic Guillemaut: (19:04) the people with a lot of skills are also on many wg, so we should look at that too, Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (19:05) +1 susan Maxim Alzoba: (19:06) particularily with RDS Rewview geo diversity is important due to difference in legal approach to personal data around the globe Poncelet Ileleji: (19:07) +1 Susan that approach is good after the survey , criteria first for survey, then move on, Maxim Alzoba: (19:07) +1 @Susan for refining questions for survey Susan Kawaguchi: (19:07) that would be helpful Susan Kawaguchi: (19:08) good idea Frederic Guillemaut: (19:09) sorry, i will have to go. let's meet next week. Marika Konings: (19:09) are you available next week, same day, same time? Poncelet Ileleji: (19:09) Next week 3rd April as we have a short Deadline my advice Frederic Guillemaut: (19:10) I will look at the list and make a selection on my side, which i will sharere with you anytime. Frederic Guillemaut: (19:10) Bye, Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (19:10) certainly we have a lot to discuss on the list Frederic Guillemaut: (19:10) i trust you for the next date. Poncelet Ileleji: (19:10) bye Frederic Maxim Alzoba: (19:10) we could make doodle poll for the next call /time Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (19:10) yes Julf Helsingius: (19:11) Wednesday is better, yes Nathalie Peregrine: (19:11) Noted. Poncelet Ileleji: (19:11) Wednesday noted thats 5th April Nathalie Peregrine: (19:11) A doodle will be sent out later today Susan Kawaguchi: (19:11) agree Maxim Alzoba: (19:11) 5th does not work for me every two weeks Maxim Alzoba: (19:12) it is RySG and RPM PDP Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (19:12) thank you all Maxim Alzoba: (19:12) bye all Julf Helsingius: (19:12) Thank you everybody! Osvaldo Novoa: (19:12) bye Poncelet Ileleji: (19:12) Thanks Marika Bye all

1 0

Notes and Action Items - GNSO Standing Selection Committee Meeting - 30 March 2017
by Emily Barabas March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. Attached you will find the slides that were presented and discussed during today’s meeting. Note that the first action item is for the full SSC. Please continue the discussion regarding interim Co-Chairs on the mailing list with the aim to have an interim leadership team in place for the call next week. Kind regards, Emily Action Items: 1. SSC members will continue the discussion over the mailing list about interim Co-Chair selection. 2. Staff will add gender to summary spreadsheet. 3. Staff will use the call for volunteers to create a first draft of questions with a forced ranking system. 4. Staff will circulate a Doodle poll for meetings on Wednesday and Thursday next week, as well as Monday the week after next. Notes: 1. Welcome & introductions, review of the agenda - Introductions: -- Staff: Marika Konings, Emily Barabas, Nathalie Peregrine -- Poncelet Ileleji - The Gambia, NPOC, representing NCSG -- Osvaldo Novoa - Uruguay, ISPCP -- Julf Helsingius - Netherlands, NomCom -- Maxim Alzoba - Russia, RySG -- Susan Kawaguchi - United States, BC, co-initiated this project, also a candidate for RDS review team, will step out for the upcoming selection process. -- Frédéric Guillemaut - France, RrSG -- Renata Aquino Ribeiro - Brazil, appointed by NCUC Charter foresees the SSC working as a normal working group with open meetings, but that the group may need to have confidential discussions. The group is expected to provide a rationale for its decisions so the community knows where it is coming from. - Group can determine the structure of its work, frequency of meetings, etc. - Upcoming task has deadlines in April, so the group may need to quickly dive into the work before finalizing processes for future selections. 2. Selection of (interim) Chair(s) - Suggestion to choose Susan as an interim chair because she has a history with the formation of the SSC. - Question: The review must be done without the assistance with others. Information can only be shared after the GNSO Council makes its decision. Is this correct? - Response: The Charter provides guidelines and principles, but there may be variations needed to process, timeline, etc for different selection processes. The SSC can determine the process and criteria for evaluating candidates. Once the assessment has taken place and the collective review has taken place, the group gets together and deliberates on the candidates. The group determines how to work to achieve full consensus. The group will also determine what they recommend to the GNSO Council. In the upcoming selection process, the group will select at least 3 and up to 7 candidates to recommend to the Council. The Council will vote on recommendations. Then this will be communicated to SO and AC chairs to make the final selection. - Members are expected to consult with their own communities. You are knowledgeable about the candidates from your own community. - We want to choose the best candidates but we also want to make sure we rotate through all the Stakeholder Groups. - Not every review team may have candidates from a certain SG/C. - It was helpful within the BC to share information about candidates and find about the perception of colleagues about those candidates. - Important to have more than 3 candidates to recommend in case some need to withdraw or become ineligible. - Depending on the agreement of the SOs and ACs the numbers may shift. We should make sure to have 7 ranked candidates for the RDS RT. - We are currently short one member because the NCSG is still in the process of appointing one member. There may be circumstances where the balance changes because some SSC members are not present. This should be taken into account. - The SSC will provide recommendations in a ranked order. The group decides how many candidates to put forward. The GNSO Council can change the recommendation or go back to the SSC with clarifying questions or to request changes to the recommendation. - Returning to the conversation about selection of interim Chairs -- Susan does not feel comfortable as a candidate to serve as the only Chair. Would possibly be able to step back into a leadership position for selections following this first selection if there are Co-Chairs. - Comment: We are not a full group yet, so we should only pick interim Chairs at the moment. We can pick Chairs once the group is complete. - Some groups have leadership teams of two or three people, although larger leadership teams typically support larger groups. It is helpful to have more than one person in case one person is not available. - It is helpful to have a facilitator/coordinator, but maybe too much to have a Chair position. - One possible approach is to appoint an interim Chair for this selection process and then revisit for the next selection process. This can be a rotating position. - Suggestion - have two Co-Chairs or one Chair and an alternate so there is a backup person in case someone is unavailable. - Broad support to have two interim Co-Chairs for this effort. Maxim volunteers to lead. With no additional volunteers, this discussion will be continued on the mailing list. - The Charter foresees that if someone cannot attend or needs to recuse themselves, they are responsible for appointing a replacement. It is up to members to determine if that should be done in cooperation with the appointing organization. 3. Review RDS RT Selection Slides - This information was initially presented in ICANN58, so the details may have changed slightly. - GAC has confirmed their nomination. The others have not yet confirmed nominations. There are some groups in which no one applied, and therefore no candidates will be put forward from these groups. - Review of tasks for the SSC as described in the SSC Charter (RDS RT Selection - Summary Document). 4. Discuss SSC approach for review and selection of candidates. - Staff has prepared an initial analysis of the responses taking into account information included in the call for volunteers for the RDS RT, although some of the specific details from candidates should be confirmed during the review of applications. - Document deadline for the upcoming Council meeting is 10 April. The Council meeting will take place on 20 April. Ideally, the SSC will make its recommendations prior to the document deadline. - There is someone on the candidate list who is affiliated with the GAC, should this person be automatically removed from the list? - The only reference to the GAC in the application was GAC participation. This group should confirm affiliation of each candidate. It is up to the SSC to determine if SG/C affiliation is a prerequisite for being considered in this review. - Can we get one level deeper on the staff analysis? Is it possible to look at the data from the staff analysis? - The full document is on the wiki page. They have made the assessment for all. The lowest ranking is "meets some" criteria. The group may need to dig deeper to see the extent to which the candidates are qualified with respect to criteria in the call for volunteers. - Staff assessment document: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64077801/RDS-WHOIS2%20Appl…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do…> - Question: How do we factor geographic diversity criteria into our recommendations. - The ultimate responsibility for that is on the SO/AC Chairs when the final selection is made. 5. Confirm next steps & next meeting - One approach - group members each make an individual assessment and then converge to discuss their perspectives. ACTION ITEM: Staff will add gender to summary spreadsheet. - Suggestion - make a rubric for analyzing applications and ranking candidates before reviewing the applications individually. Use numerical ranking system. - Staff can set this up, but there are nuances. How should the ranking system be organized? Which criteria from the call for volunteers should be used for the ranking? Should the numerical system use a forced ranking approach? - We should decide on criteria in the survey to guide our thinking as we go through the applications. What questions do we want to consider for each candidate? This allows each person to come back to the group with a list of top choices. ACTION ITEM: Staff will use the call for volunteers to create a first draft of questions with a forced ranking system. - Most of the calls will likely have similar criteria. We may be able to create a reusable standard rubric for the group's work. - We might need different approaches for different evaluations. A reusable standard rubric may not work. - Next call: tentatively next Wednesday ACTION ITEM: Staff will circulate a Doodle poll for meetings on Wednesday and Thursday next week, as well as Monday the week after next.

1 0

Welcome to the GNSO Standing Selection Committee
by Marika Konings March 29, 2017

March 29, 2017

Dear All, Thank you for volunteering for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee. Unfortunately the membership is not complete yet (we are still waiting for the NCSG appointments) but as the first meeting is approaching rapidly, we thought it might be helpful to already share some of the information that staff has collated in preparation: 1. A work space has been created that contains all relevant information: see https://community.icann.org/x/aL-RAw. 2. Please make sure to familiarize yourself with the SSC Charter: https://community.icann.org/x/zb-RAw. 3. Although there is the expectation that the SSC will develop detailed steps and timing for each selection process it is responsible for, your first assignment may require you to immediately dive into the work as the GNSO Council expects your recommendations for nominations for the RDS Review Team in time for its next meeting on 20 April. In order to meet the GNSO Council motion and document deadline, this means that a motion and the proposed nominations would need to be submitted by 10 April. 4. Staff has created the attached summary document with provides an overview of: a. The guiding principles the SSC is expected to apply b. The main criteria for the RDS Review Team members, taken from the call for volunteers c. The list of candidates that have requested GNSO endorsement, including their affiliation, a link to their application, their geographic region, staff assessment of expertise criteria (note, this assessment was carried out by staff responsible for the application process, not GNSO policy staff) and an overview of their participation in WHOIS/RDS related activities. d. The detailed information can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/6b-RAw The SSC is expected to select its Chair(s) from its membership. As a reminder, the GNSO Council tasked the SSC with the following: * To carry out the review and selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20 April 2017 meeting. * To develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council consideration by its June 2017 meeting, and following the approval by the GNSO Council, carry out the selection process. * Following the completion of two selection processes, the GNSO Council requests the SSC to report back to the GNSO Council with its assessment of whether the charter provides sufficient guidance and flexibility to carry out its work, and/or whether any modifications should be considered. Acknowledging that this is a work in progress, the GNSO Council will review this assessment as well as whether any modifications should be considered, as well as any inconsistencies that may need to be addressed as a result of the finalization of the work of the Bylaws Drafting Team. If there is anything else staff can do to facilitate your first meeting, please let us know. The first meeting has been scheduled for Thursday 30 March at 16.00 UTC. Call details have been sent separately. Best regards, Marika 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<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

2 4