Dear SSC members, Please find below notes and action items from today’s call on 14 December 2020 at 14:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/2020-12-14+GNSO+Standing+Selection+.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Non-registry GNSO Liaison to the CSC: ACTION ITEM: Staff to send a follow up email asking if there are any objections to putting the candidate forward to the GNSO Council as the non-registry GNSO liaison to the CSC. Request a response in 48 hours. Update on EOI Process – GNSO Nominated Mentor to the ICANN Fellowship Program ACTION ITEM: Take to the email list -- SSC members to consider whether the Ex-Officio Member Representing GNSO Council Leadership to the SSC should raise the issue of burn-out/lack of candidates with Council leadership; also whether SGs and Cs should be apprised of this issue. GNSO member(s) for the IRP Standing Panel selection committee ACTION ITEM: Continue discussion on the list and consider whether to schedule a meeting next week. Notes: 1. SOI Updates: -- Maxim Alzoba will temporarily replace Craig Schwartz on the SSC through December for the RySG. 2. Discussion of Candidate – Non-registry GNSO Liaison to the CSC (general info: https://community.icann.org/x/nQENCQ, candidate materials: https://community.icann.org/x/ziwhB) -- There was only one candidate. -- All 9 members completed the poll. -- The poll results were circulated and also attached. Summary: -- Question 1: Names of respondents. -- Question 2: Have you reviewed the materials – all answered “yes”. -- Question 3: knowledge of the IANA naming function – weighted average 8.78. -- Question 4: analytical skills – weighted average 8.44. -- Question 5: working and communicating in English – weighted average 9.78. -- Question 6: communication skills – weighted average 9.0. -- Question 7: managing or participating in committees – weighted average 8.56. -- Question 8: relationship management – weighted average 7.89. -- Question 9: Interest in being involved in the CSC – weighted average 8.78. -- Question 10: understanding and purpose of CSC – weighted average 9.11. -- Question 11: additional comments – just a few that were all positive. Discussion: -- In future, add a question related to time management skills. -- In the materials the candidate submitted there was information about participation in working groups, and noting that he has cut back on his participation to free up more time for the liaison role. Does give some idea of the breadth of his interests. -- If you have been around ICANN for a long time you would have encountered the candidate; perhaps less clear from his materials for those who are new to ICANN. -- Can’t see anything in his materials that would disqualify the candidate. Not productive to ask the candidate to answer a new question. -- If we had more than one candidate it might have made sense to ask a further question. -- Ask if there are no objections to support the candidate to be the GNSO Liaison to the CSC. None provided. -- Since not all members are participating in the meeting, we’ll ask for responses from members on the list for 48 hours. ACTION ITEM: Staff to send a follow up email asking if there are any objections to putting the candidate forward to the GNSO Council as the non-registry GNSO liaison to the CSC. Request a response in 48 hours. 3. Update on EOI Process – GNSO Nominated Mentor to the ICANN Fellowship Program (https://community.icann.org/x/8oEmCQ) -- Call for EOI closes on 17 December. -- Staff will send a survey template. -- Once the EOI closes staff will send the survey along with the candidate materials. -- There has been one candidate application so far, but there will likely be more. -- The SSC will have through the holidays to do the evaluation. -- Plan to submit the candidate for the January GNSO Council meeting. -- Lack of applicants could suggest burnout in the community. -- Could send concerns to the GNSO Council, noting which positions were filled by only one candidate, such as this one and the GAC Liaison. -- Not sure what the GNSO Council could do. -- We all also need to be mindful that many are juggling more work, not less. -- Think it’s our duty to report. The GNSO Council could take this into account. -- Another point of reporting could be to the SGs and Cs. It goes to our respective groups, to be aware of this situation. -- Perhaps individual SSC members could relay the message to the groups they represent? -- I think all who have been participating in ICANN in the last years are aware of the problem of candidates burn out, now with COVID 19 the problem has grown. Working from home is very requiring on our time. -- I think various constituency Leaders should just make it a point to regularly remind people to volunteer for roles. -- Perhaps utilize the SSC liaison to the GNSO Council? And then the SGs and Cs also could raise it. -- Potentially take this discussion to the list. ACTION ITEM: Take to the email list -- SSC members to consider whether the Ex-Officio Member Representing GNSO Council Leadership to the SSC should raise the issue of burn-out/lack of candidates with Council leadership; also whether SGs and Cs should be apprised of this issue. 4. Review of SSC Timeline for December and January: * 3 Dec: Launch Fellowship Mentor EOI * 7 Dec: New deadline for CSC Liaison EOI * 8 Dec: Launch poll for SSC members complete on CSC Liaison candidates * Week of 14 Dec: SSC meeting to discuss CSC Liaison candidates (members should complete poll at least 24 hours before the meeting) * 17 Dec: Deadline for Fellowship Mentor EOI * 18 Dec: Launch poll for SSC members complete on Fellowship Mentor candidates * Early week of 21 Dec: Additional SSC meeting to discuss CSC Liaison candidates, if necessary * Week of 4 Jan: SSC meeting to discuss Fellowship Mentor candidates (members should complete poll at least 24 hours before the meeting) * 11 Jan: Motion Deadline for January GNSO meeting – placeholder motion possible * Week of 11 Jan: Additional SSC meeting to discuss Fellowship Mentor candidates, if necessary * 19 Jan: Last day to submit name(s) of recommended candidate(s) * 21 Jan: GNSO Council meeting 5. AOB - GNSO member(s) for the IRP Standing Panel selection committee -- This is an additional assignment to the SSC. -- The IRT Standing Panel selection committee is an accountability mechanism in the Bylaws. -- Bylaws has a very specific requirement of a 7-member standing panel should be appointed. -- We are looking at selecting the 7 members of the IRP Standing Panel. -- The Advisory Committees and Supporting Organization have a key role in selecting the panelists. -- ICANN is formulating the process to select the members of the panel. -- What the SSC is being asked to do on behalf of the entire GNSO is to appoint members to the Community Representative Group (CRG), which will look at the applicants for the Standing Panel and will make the selection of the Standing Panelists that will be sent to the Board for consideration. There is no step where the candidates go back to the SO/ACs – the community representative group will have the authority to make the selection directly to the Board. -- There currently is not process in the GNSO where these selections can be made. So the SSC was suggested as a possible mechanism and the SO/AC leadership agreed. -- The CRG has not previously existed. -- The call for EOI to join the CRG has closed. As of the closing date we received applications for endorsements from the GNSO, the ccNSO, the ALAC, and the GAC. ALAC and GAC reverted to staff that they have endorsed their representatives. We have: 2 representatives from the ALAC and 2 from the GAC. What is pending are the representatives from the GNSO and ccNSO. The RSSAC and SSAC have not put forward candidates. -- Only one candidate has applied for GNSO endorsement. The SSC will consider whether that one candidate will be the GNSO’s representative to the CRG. It is the CRG that will choose the candidates for the Standing Panel for consideration by the Board. -- The Terms of Reference does say that each SO/AC should have 1 or maximum of 2 representatives. This was left open because the leaders didn’t want to be tied down to a number. They felt that the skills sets is more important than the actual number. -- The SSC will need to have guidelines on the timing and selection criteria. -- The timeline is fairly tight. The idea is for the CRG to be confirmed by the end of January. But if the SSC believes that is not a realistic timeline the suggestion is to convey that back to the SG and C and Council leadership. -- For the GNSO-specific appointment we are trying to develop at least a short document of what the GNSO should prioritize with respect to skills. The document is due to be finalized this week. ACTION ITEM: Continue discussion on the list and consider whether to schedule a meeting next week.