Dear all,
Thanks to Susan, Maxim, Rafik, and
Frédéric for the additional feedback on the items below. It sounds like there is general agreement on many of the proposed charter revisions, but that there is not yet consensus on the question about transparency of deliberations. In the latest exchange,
it appears that Susan and Maxim are expressing support for maintaining transparency of deliberations throughout a selection process, whereas
Frédéric and Rafik are expressing support for keeping deliberations confidential during a selection process and publishing these materials when the process is complete. Do other members have additional input?
I wanted to highlight a question that Rafik raised regarding the SSC notifying candidates of SSC recommendations: “Shouldn't the notification to candidates to be done by GNSO secretariat after the council votes
on the appointment? I am not sure why the SSC should inform the candidates, the motion would indicate how notification will be made?” Some members have expressed support for the SSC updating candidates about the SSC recommendation at the same time the SSC
makes a recommendation to the Council. This would be in addition to the Council notifying candidates once the Council votes. Are there additional comment on this proposed change?
Lastly, staff proposes the following revised text
under Review Team Appointment Principles, bullet 8, based on feedback received: “The level of consensus reached by the SSC on the selected candidates will also be communicated [to the GNSO Council] as well as any
minority views, should these exist additional guidance or comments the SSC would like to provide. If the SSC is unable to reach consensus on a recommendation,
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.”
Kind regards,
Emily
From: Gnso-ssc <gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands <fg@safebrands.com>
Organization: SafeBrands
Date: Thursday 1 March 2018 at 10:50
To: "gnso-ssc@icann.org" <gnso-ssc@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ssc] Reminder: Proposed SSC charter revisions - items for discussion
Hello
I am fine with the comments, and the way to keep information confidential, suggested by Marika,
I would favor starting the terms for the team after the charter is validated,
Best regards
Frederic
Le 28/02/2018 à 18:36, Emily Barabas a écrit :
Dear SSC members,
As a reminder, your input is encouraged on the items below regarding proposed SSC charter revisions.
Kind regards,
Emily
From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday 20 February 2018 at 21:21
To: "gnso-ssc@icann.org" <gnso-ssc@icann.org>
Subject: Proposed SSC charter revisions - items for discussion
On the last SSC call, members reviewed proposed revisions to the SSC charter, which were drafted in response to comments received here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c0NllDbjSFap0KR9s61a8uXJoH78FqLtBTOgahLVeLQ/edit[docs.google.com]. The latest version of the proposed charter revisions are attached.
Several items were identified for further discussion over the mailing list. Your input is kindly requested on the mailing list regarding the following items:
- The section of the charter on Transparency currently states: “Unless otherwise directed by the GNSO Council, the names of all applicants and all documents received during the selection process shall be considered public and published on the GNSO web-site or other ICANN web-site. 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.” Some SSC members have suggested that the SSC should conduct deliberations privately by default, publishing emails sent to the mailing list, meeting notes, call recordings, and other materials relevant to a selection process only after the selection process has been completed. Do members support proposing this change to the charter? Another suggestion made by an SSC member was to continue the current practices regarding transparency but add disclaimer text to the SSC wiki indicating that all SSC recommendations are subject to GNSO Council approval. Are there additional proposals that SSC members would like to make?
- On the last call, some SSC members raised questions about how the NomCom operates with respect to confidentiality of deliberations, noting that the NomCom is also a body that conducts selection processes for positions within ICANN. According the NomCom Operating Procedures (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/nomcom2018-procedures-2017-12-15-en#A4[icann.org]), the NomCom keeps all deliberations confidential throughout the selection process and continues to keep this information confidential after the selection process is complete. This is a higher level of confidentiality than SSC members have proposed for the SSC.
- Staff has investigated options for enabling the SSC to delay public posting of materials, including email and call records and other documentation, until after deliberations for an appointment are complete. While administratively more complicated than the current setup, this is possible from a technical perspective.
- Under Review Team Appointment Principles, proposed text for bullet 8 included the following text: “The level of consensus reached by the SSC on the selected candidates will also be communicated [to the GNSO Council] as well as any minority views, should these exist.” Do SSC members think that it is appropriate to keep the text “as well as any minority views, should these exist” given that the SSC operates by full consensus? Should this text be clarified to state that the SSC should communicate minority views only if consensus is not possible to reach?
- The same bullet 8 states: “The SSC shall notify candidates of its recommendations to the GNSO Council at the same time that it notifies the GNSO Council of its recommendations, making clear that the recommendations are subject to GNSO Council consideration.” Is the SSC comfortable with beginning to implement this new step after the GNSO Council approves the revised charter (as opposed to sooner)?
Thanks in advance for your input on these items.
Kind regards,
Emily
Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________Gnso-ssc mailing listGnso-ssc@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc
--
|
|
|
|
Pôle
Média de la Belle de Mai • 37 rue Guibal • 13003 Marseille • France 
N.B : En application des principes de respect de l'équilibre vie privée vie professionnelle à SafeBrands, les mails qu'il m'arrive d'envoyer en dehors des heures ou jours ouvrables n'appellent pas de réponse immédiate.