Dear SSC members, Please see below notes and action items for the meeting today, 7 June 2017 at 14:00 UTC. 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. Recordings, call transcripts, full chat transcripts, slides and other relevant meeting materials are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/0zbwAw. Kind regards, Emily ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GNSO Standing Selection Committee meeting on Wednesday 7 June at 14.00 UTC notes: 1. Roll Call / SOI - In attendance: Frederic, Julf, Osvaldo, Poncelet, Susan, Lori, Maxim 2. Review responses from James to follow-up questions (see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ssc/2017-June/000171.html) 3. Review survey results (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-V83H7KLP/)[surveymonkey.com] - Responses were mixed, we didn't come out with a single clear path/direction - The intent was to inform deliberations and get a sense of the direction people were going. Answers were not all mutually exclusive. Use caution when looking at percentages, there are small numbers of responses and respondents could select more than one response for questions. 4. Consider the following possible scenarios: A. Designate GNSO Leadership Team (GNSO Chair & GNSO Council Vice-Chairs) to fill the role of representative to the EC Admin and determine amongst themselves who would attend which meeting Chat excerpt: Marika Konings: Under A it would be considered a shared responsibility of the GNSO Leadership Team. Term limits would be linked to their term as Chair/Vice-Chair and/or appointment to the Council. (term is one year, renewable) Marika Konings: one advantage of the Chair would be that he/she is already accustomed to the responsibility of representing the GNSO Council and are aware of this notion that they are their in a representative position and not an individual one. Marika Konings: allowing the leadership to figure it out would allow for spreading out to work Marika Konings: depending on their other responsibilities and work load - Pro: As the job is simpler than originally thought, and the job requires less of a time commitment than originally expected by the SSC, this option will keep things simple. - Pro: Since there is a chair and two vice chairs, one member could be the primary with another member of the leadership team as a fallback. - Possibility of designating outgoing chair. - Pro: having it as a joint responsibility for the leadership team would also have the advantage of ensuring that there is representation from across the GNSO houses. Chat excerpt: Julf Helsingius: I am not that bothered with representation, considering the position has no power Marika Konings: right - but just in case if there is concern someone would go beyond what they are supposed to do ;-) - there may be some sensitivity for some regarding representation. Chat excerpt: Lori Schulman: if we propose to go the scenario A route the we can note we considered the NCPH/CPH issue but recommend that it is not helpful here due to duties and need for clear, simple solution and trust in leadership Julf Helsingius: i agree Julf Helsingius: I don't see it as a leadership role Julf Helsingius: it is more like a liaison Marika Konings: the proposal is that the leadership team would work out amongst themselves who would be the representative and/or how to share the responsibilities of this role. Maxim Alzoba: it would be nice If we do not forget to add notice of "there is a need of creation of a fast-replacement of the GNSO Rep. to EC Adm.(situations where the current Rep. can not show up / carry out actions required by the role)" Maxim Alzoba: I think we need to add this as a side note - that the need was identified Maxim Alzoba: yes - whitout words on who needs to design it or how it should be designed (it is outside of our role) - Would we need replacement process in scenario A, as members of the leadership team would be able to serve as backup for one another? - Different people have different availability, may be helpful to ask leadership team if the shared responsibility is something they can manage themselves. - Is there any concern about/limitation on this approach? B. Designate someone from the GNSO Council, but not the GNSO Leadership team to fill the role of representative to the EC Admin as well as appointing an alternate from the GNSO Council. C. Designate a recent former GNSO Council member to fill the role of representative to the EC Admin as well as appointing an alternate who is a recent former Council member. - Con if former chair/member is selected: will not be funded to participate in ICANN meetings. 5. Discuss what next steps are: - Next steps – Group seems to be collecting around option A. Make sure option A is a workable solution from a process perspective, seek confirmation on mailing list that there is support for this option. - Ideally, we would submit a consensus recommendation in time for the Council's document deadline for ICANN59. 6. Confirm next steps & next meeting - Next meeting Wednesday 14 June at 14:00 UTC