Dear SSC members, Following an action item from the call today, staff has produced a draft poll to evaluate remaining SSR2-RT candidates based on attributes included in the attached skills matrix. Please find a preview of the draft poll here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/create/preview/?sm=50pEczALMZ80V7EW8NRJ5gXbjv4a... . Please note that the poll is not yet open. The preview allows you to test the format and provide feedback. If you would like to suggest changes to the poll content or format, please send your input by 20:00 UTC on Sunday 28 January. Staff will open the poll on Monday. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Date: Thursday 25 January 2018 at 09:08 To: "gnso-ssc@icann.org" <gnso-ssc@icann.org> Subject: Notes and Action Items - SSC Meeting - 25 January 2018 Dear SSC members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes from our meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/Uge8B. For reference, the proposed draft revisions to the SSC Charter are attached. Members are encouraged to send comments about this document to the list. In particular, please provide input on the Transparency section on page 4. Kind regards, Emily ACTION ITEMS Action Item 1: Staff will circulate draft poll for feedback comparing skills of remaining SSR2-RT candidates and rows in the attached skills matrix. Action Item 2: SSC members will review the attached redline charter and provide feedback, with particular focus on the Transparency section on page 4. Action Item 3: Staff will send out a Doodle poll for the next meeting, planned for the second week of February. NOTES: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates - no SOI updates 2. Comparison of remaining SSR2-RT candidates and matrix of skills produced by existing SSR2-RT members - GNSO Council has tasked SSC with comparing the two remaining candidates for the SSR-RT with the skills matrix produced by the existing SSR-RT candidates. - Existing team appears to be fairly balanced. There does not appear to be any category that is an obvious gap. - The candidates have distinct skill sets. - One possible path forward - one or two members take the lead in filling in candidate skills in the table. The rest of the group reviews and refines this analysis. - Alternate approach - conduct a poll among all members. - The SSC could also go back to the original poll completed earlier this year and see how the candidates compare, noting that this poll is less granular. - Reminder that the Council tasked the SSC with focusing on the skills matrix and whether candidates fill any gaps. This is not yet a selection assignment. - Members agree to conduct a new poll (see action item). 3. Review of draft proposed revisions to the SSC Charter - Staff has created a first draft of the proposed revised charter based on the feedback received from SSC members and discussion on the previous call. From the chat: Maxim Alzoba: I think we need feedback from other members too Maxim Alzoba: I have a comment about page5 - the described situation is related to the case where there is no consensus and SSC needs to report the issue to the GNSO Councel with prepared reasoning and options Maxim Alzoba: it was about minority views - Support expressed for keeping text: "as well as any minority views, should these exist” (at the bottom of page 5). - Regarding the section on Transparency, the optics might be a challenge if we publish information about deliberations before the Council has made a decision. - One suggestion -- make deliberations private, including call recordings, and email list before a decision is made, publish this information later. - Alternately, the group continue with the status quo and ensure timely communication to candidates when the group notifies the GNSO Council of its recommendation. From the chat: Renata Aquino Ribeiro: I'm much more in favor of making this list only private Maxim Alzoba: @Renata, I am not sure we can do it Renata Aquino Ribeiro: I think halfway solutions are awkward. Either we have full transparency or not. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: and prone to errors, non-records Maxim Alzoba: if we do not find the way to properly design delayed output model, we might continue the usual way of SSC Renata Aquino Ribeiro: i think the delay is just for the announcement Maxim Alzoba: after all it works more or less Ok Renata Aquino Ribeiro: (which is only real anyway once GNSO right?) Emily Barabas: Perhaps the group can start with timely notifications and then if it encounters issues, look into further measures? Maxim Alzoba: when we release the same info to all participants, it is both transparent and clear... we might need a proper disclaimer section of such messages - Suggestion – revis-t timeline document to ensure the group is notifying candidates in a timely manner. - Suggestion -- add additional clarification in the email from the SSC to candidates with disclaimer text. 4. AOB - none Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976