Dear SSC members, 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/1c0NllDbjSFap0KR9s61a8uXJoH78FqLtBTOgahLV.... The latest version of the proposed charter revisions 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), 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