Dear SSC members, Please find below notes and action items from today’s call. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/2020-08-20+GNSO+Standing+Selection+.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Item: ACTION ITEM: Staff to raise the issue to Council leadership concerning whether candidates must submit applications only via their SGs/Cs, or can submit directly. Staff to draft a message, to be reviewed by the SSC and Council leadership, to go to the SGs/Cs leadership clarifying the process. Notes: 1. Welcome/agenda review/SOI updates: No updates provided. 2. SSC practices regarding recordings, meeting notes, and other selection process materials: -- As a default the SSC errs on the side of transparency. -- This means calls are recorded and posted on the wiki. -- Meeting notes are taken but some details are not captured, although they are in the recording. -- Posted to wiki unless the information needs to be private, in which case we can post on a private wiki. -- We will use a survey tool and the results will be posted to the wiki. 3. Review of assignment – GNSO Liaison to the GAC (https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/GAC+Liaison+-+2020) -- This is an interesting role. -- Need to know what is going on in the GNSO Council and the PDPs, but also the internal work of the GAC. -- In the meetings the person will be very busy, especially at ICANN meetings – two or three places at the same time. -- Question: Is anything missing in the Call for Volunteers in the description of the role? Answer: All of this text was adopted by the Council when the role was launched as part of the consultation process between the GAC and the GNSO. So it has been released in the same form. Any changes would have to be adopted by the Council. This is a formal document. -- Question: How much is a GNSO role and how much is a GAC role – what percentage? Is this a non-voting role? Answer: 80 percent of the time should be spent in the GAC room at ICANN meetings. Yes, it is a non-voting role. Between the meetings there isn’t much GAC work. Between meetings it is more GNSO and at ICANN meetings it’s more GAC. Can attend closed meetings if invited. -- Between the meetings the person can participate in the national pre-meetings, before the ICANN meetings. -- Question: Now that meetings are virtual, are there things that have become more difficult? Answer: Depends on the person coming in and how familiar they are with the GAC and the members. You need the network. If you are less familiar you need to be talking to people, which is harder now. But the meetings are easier because there are fewer conflicts. -- Now there is much more engagement between the leadership teams. The next year the role will likely be redefined and the new person will be involved in that. 4. Selection process Proposed Timeline: * 20 Aug – 1 Sep: SSC develops a survey tool with a series of questions reflecting qualifications and criteria established in the call for volunteers * 1 Sep: Deadline for SG/Cs to submit applications on behalf of candidates. * 1 Sep – 7 Sep: SSC members individually review applications and complete the survey tool with their assessment of the candidates. * 7 Sep – 7 Oct: SSC meets and collectively reviews all the applications and any other materials relevant to the selection process, discusses survey results, and seeks to reach full consensus on a recommendation. * 8 Oct: Target date for finalizing full consensus recommendation (motion deadline for 21 Oct GNSO Council meeting is 11 Oct). -- A week for the SSC members to review the applications and complete the survey tool. -- Goal is to reach full consensus on a single candidate. -- Goal is for the GNSO Council to consider at its 21 October meeting. Selection Process: -- Survey tool is used for the evaluation. -- Need to decide what will be in the tool, based on the 2017 process: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=OFikUjTbv3tn4wK_2B5Sra1TjWONWOqEj... -- SGs/Cs will be submitting candidates up until 01 September. Candidates should only come via the SGs and Cs. -- Need to make it clear that only candidates coming via the SGs and Cs are eligible. This came up internally among staff and it is our understanding that the applications will be sent through SGs/Cs. If a person sends in an application as an individual the GNSO support staff will direct that person to submit via the SG/C. -- Could put a question into the survey tool? That the person is supported by an SG/C. Could use it as an evaluation factor/criteria. -- Applicants could come outside of SGs/Cs, and the SGs/Cs would be asked to endorse their candidates. -- No individual applications have been received. -- In 2017 it was enforced that the candidates had to submit via the SGs/Cs. So taking candidates outside of SGs and Cs would be a change. -- Just a note that the call for volunteers does not say that SG/Cs need to submit only a single applicant and also doesn’t say that by submitting an application it is providing a formal endorsement. -- Question: Do we want to include language ability in the survey tool? Answer: We might put that as an evaluation criteria in the form. But we can’t verify those skills. ACTION ITEM: Staff to raise the issue to Council leadership concerning whether candidates must submit applications only via their SGs/Cs, or can submit directly. Staff to draft a message, to be reviewed by the SSC and Council leadership, to go to the SGs/Cs leadership clarifying the process. 5. AOB: None.