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%20Applicants%20Expertise%2024March2017%281%29.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1490749760000&api=v2[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_64077801_RDS-2DWHOIS2-2520Applicants-2520Expertise-252024March2017-25281-2529.xlsx-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1490749760000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=q5Hkz2nfO5Ys9fj5yb_cEmsPdSqqbIhptQKSWZ66icg&s=CJBqWE1jyU82SizQGVUZUJv7JFTsJzDxpul5fJPNPbU&e=> - 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.