Dear SSC members, 

Please find below notes and action items from today’s call on Wednesday, 06 April 2022 at 12:30 UTC.   These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/2022-02-01+-+GNSO+Standing+Selection+Committee.  

Kind regards,

Emily and Julie

Action Items:

1. Staff to produce a revised draft of the redlined charter in Word format.
2. SSC members to review and provide comments/suggestions on the draft redlined charter, if any, in 2 weeks.

Notes:  

Proposed Agenda

SSC Meeting – 06 April 2022

1. Welcome and SOI updates

2. SSC Charter Review

See redlined charter: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17UDoTqBwymQunfYL0Z_UpPfPBmQ-U0TQCcgTJTKfq9M/edit#gid=0

And see spreadsheet and summary of input: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KxpNrhmHhygx5Z29guAwpYC0TsNThrft/edit

Mission & Scope, Page 1: Appointment of the GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration is no longer the responsibility of the SSC.  Also delete related text on page 2, under Objectives & Goals.

Deliverables & Timeframes – page 2:

• Re: Timeline – every SSC should agree to a timeline that is suitable for their task.  The purpose of the wording is this section is that the SSC developed a standard process document.  Make it clear that the timeline template is not itself a deliverable, it is a resource document; the recommendations following from the assignments are the deliverables.  Separate out the timeline at the top followed by the deliverables.
• List of examples of assignments also is updated.

Membership Criteria, page 3:

• An SSC member suggested that mailing list observers should be permitted. Add to charter?
• Currently the SSC has members and alternates as assigned.   The main role is the member and there aren’t observers.  The mailing list is public in the archive and the recordings are public.  In terms of the mailing list it is a bit of a judgement call.  In comment, Sam and Osvaldo indicated that they would like more discussion.

Discussion:

• In this instance where meetings are infrequent and the mailing lists are public, don’t see the need to invite observers to calls. Suggest leaving at as is.
• Seems to be general agreement to retain the original language.

Conflicts, page 3:

• Comment from staff: It may be appropriate to provide additional guidance for cases where an SSC member has a personal or professional relationship with a candidate that the SSC is considering. For example:
  - Members are [encouraged/required] to declare to the SSC if they have a personal or professional relationship with a candidate.
  - They are not required to recuse themselves in these cases, but they are encouraged to use their best judgement in determining whether to participate in a selection process.

Discussion:

• Don’t think members should be required to recuse – but could be required to declare interests (instead of “encouraged”).
• Most candidates are likely to be people that the SSC members know.  So a light touch is fine.
• Perhaps we can say that if there is a personal or professional relationship the member needs to say something about it, or maybe “direct professional relationship” might be better. 
• Suggest adding, ‘that may be perceived as having a material impact to the decision process’.
• Need to be really careful – need to review the revised text.
• There will be an additional opportunity to review and respond to the next round of edits.

Role of the Chair, bottom of page 3:

- Comment from staff: It may be appropriate to add further details about the role of the Chair. For example, based on current practice:
- The Chair serves as a neutral facilitator.
- For this particular group, the Chair also has the opportunity to "change hats" and provide input as a member, as long as s/he makes clear that that s/he is doing so.

Suggestion is to document the status quo.  No objections from SSC members.

Page 4 – insert links re: Committee Roles, Functions, & Duties, Working Group Guidelines and Statements of Interest (SOI) Guidelines.

Review Team Appointments & Principles, page 5:

• In practice, SG/Cs provide any input about the candidates through their appointed SSC members. The charter could be more clear that SSC members are expected to coordinate with their groups and ensure that the groups have an opportunity to provide this input to the process.
• Comment from Sam: Re: #2, #3. Wording could be more explicit about the SSC member reaching back to their SG/C for input and feedback.

Discussion:

• Seems to be up to the SG/C, rather than detailed in the charter.  Charter should not expect people to report back.
• Current wording could be more explicit that the input comes via the SSC member representative, not directly from the SG/C.
• Support for minor change.

Decision-Making Methodologies, page 6:

• Re: “Designation the position”: Comment from Sam: “Should we repeat what was said earlier and define a lack of full consensus. " Some part of: "In case no full consensus is achieved, the SSC will inform the GNSO Council accordingly, providing the details as necessary and agreed by the SSC as to why it was not possible to achieve full consensus."”

Discussion: General agreement on the minor change.

Other minor changes:

• Minor adjustments for gender neutral terminology.
• Change “appeals process” to “appeal process”.

Next Steps:

1. Leadership and staff to produce a revised draft of the redlined charter in Word format.
2. SSC members will have 2 weeks to review and discuss with their groups.
3. Consensus call on the mailing list by non-objection in 1 week.
4. Submit to Council at either the May or June Council meeting.  May meeting document and motion deadline is 09 May for 19 May meeting.

ACTION ITEMS:

3. Staff to produce a revised draft of the redlined charter in Word format.
4. SSC members to review the revised draft of the redlined charter and provide comments/suggestions, if any, in 2 weeks.