Dear SSC Members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today, Monday 17 April 2017 at 13:00 UTC. While not all members of the SSC were present on the call, those that did attend have proposed a way forward for the full group to consider. The suggested solution: Recommend to the GNSO Council that the top four candidates should have seats on the RDS-RT. Provide instructions for the Council to advocate for this recommendation with the SOs and ACs, noting that only the top three candidates are guaranteed slots in the RDS-RT, and that any additional appointments are at the discretion of the SOs and ACs. Staff will shortly circulate details about this proposal to the SSC list for further consideration and will revise the Council motion to reflect this proposal. The SSC may have an additional call on Wednesday if further discussion is needed to reach consensus on the proposal. Kind regards, Emily ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ GNSO Standing Selection Committee teleconference on Monday, 17 April 2017 at 13:00 UTC for 60 minutes Notes: - Recap on status: We received an email from Frederic that on further consultations, we felt that he could not support the ranking of candidates. - He proposes an alternate ranking to increase the diversity of stakeholder groups represented in the top three candidates, recognizing that the top three candidates will automatically be included in the RDS-RT. - Some other members expressed concern about this proposal. - Staff displayed the following text in the AC room for the SSC to reference: From the SSC Charter: The SSC shall strive as far as possible to achieve balance, representativeness, diversity and sufficient expertise appropriate for the applicable selection process. In order to achieve balance and diversity on the Review Teams, the SSC is strongly encouraged to employ a system of rotation to Review Team selections. Any Stakeholder Group which nominated candidates(s) for a Review Team but did not have a candidate selected for that Review Team shall be preferred as a qualified applicant from their Stakeholder Group for one of the three guaranteed slots for the next GNSO Review Team appointment processes. Even though the SSC was not responsible for the selection of the candidates for the SSR2-RT, you may want to factor this into your continued deliberations to achieve full consensus on the candidates to be proposed for the RDS RT? The following community members, including their respective affiliation were selected for the SSR2-RT following GNSO endorsement: James Gannon (NCSG), Denise Michel (CSG – BC), Emily Taylor (RrSG). As a reminder, based on the initial survey and deliberations, the SSC ranked the proposed candidates for the RDS RT as follows: 1-3: Susan Kawaguchi (CSG – BC), Erika Mann (non-affiliated – non-voting Nominating Committee member to the GNSO Council), Stephanie Perrin (NCSG), 4) Volker Greimann (RrSG), 5) Marc Anderson (RySG), Stefania Milan (NCSG) and Timothy Chen (CSG – BC). It may also be worth noting that for this specific review, no requests for endorsement were received from the ASO, RSSAC and SSAC which means that at least in theory there will be additional seats available. It will however be up to the SO/AC chairs to decide whether or not to fill these additional seats. From the chat: Maxim Alzoba: Marika, please add to the note, that the note of Frederic was supported by me. Maxim Alzoba: and that Both Frederic and me referenced to " sufficient expertise " in technolgy - Question - can we take an additional consenus call? - Response - if we no longer have full consensus, then the Council is not expected to consider the recommendation from the SSC. If SSC does not reach full consenus prior to Thursday, the motion will need to withdrawn or deferred. - Reminder - It is only the top three that will automatically be included in the RDS-RT. From the chat: Renata Aquino Ribeiro: I believe Poncelet disagrees with the change regardless of there being 3 or 4 Julf Helsingius: That's how I understood it too Julf Helsingius: So no consensus eiher way - Only one review team has so far been filled using this process, no additional members from the GNSO were included. For the RDS-RT, there may be additional slots beyond the three, although this is not guaranteed. - Could we bring the outcome of the discussion as it currently stands to the Council? - The charter envisions that the SSC only puts forward consensus recommendations to the GNSO Council, although it could be possible to give the Council a set of options based on the SSC's delberations. It is also possible for the SSC to request more time from the Council. From the chat: Renata Aquino Ribeiro: I would like to know if these additional seats will be available, because that would help us in consensus. Julf Helsingius: Yes, knowing about additional seats would help - The assignment of any "free" seats will be dependent of the SO/AC discussion. The SSC can recommend guaranteeing the top four, and the Council can make this case to the SOs and ACs but the outcome will depend on the deliberations of the SO/ACs. From the chat: Julf Helsingius: I think we would have pretty good argumets to James to argue for a 4th position Renata Aquino Ribeiro: And perhaps we can send that communication to SO/ACs to ask them for support Options for next steps: 1. Agree to a change in the top 3 candidates. 2. Go back to the GNSO Council and ask for additional time (and possibly request additional information to inform deliberations). 3. Go back to the GNSO Council and say that no consensus is anticipated. 4. Go back to the Council recommending top four candidates with instructions to the Council to defend the allocation with the SOs and ACs. - General support for option 4. Staff will revise the motion, circulate this idea on the mailing list for consideration by those not currently on the call, and leave open the option of having an additional call on Wednesday. ACTION ITEM: Staff will revise the motion and circulate on the mailing list a proposal to go back to the Council recommending top four candidates with instructions to the Council to defend the allocation with the SOs and ACs.