For your review - RDS RT evaluation survey options
Dear All, Following on from the call today, staff has gone ahead and created two (for now) possible approaches for a survey to review the candidates for the RDS Review Team: · Option 1 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY7... for a preview. This is a very straightforward approach which first asks two questions in relation to whether the candidate qualifies as a GNSO candidate (yes/no-don’t know) and whether the candidate has the necessary expertise and competence (yes/no-don’t know), followed by a ranking of the candidates. This approach is similar to the one used by the volunteers that reviewed the SSR2-RT candidates. · Option 2 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=3yLMDGyDuJTXv7WxGEXYmZTUiaAeDz3ZM... for a preview. This survey goes into a bit more detail as it asks to rank the candidates based on how the meet 1) the skills and expertise as outlined in the call for volunteers, and 2) the desired attributes as outlined in the call for volunteers. This option could be further refined by asking a ranking for each individual skill / expertise and/or desired attribute, but that would make the survey significantly longer and would also take you more time to complete. The aggregated score could be used to obtain an overall ranking based on the responses from all. Note that these two options are in preview mode – any responses will not be recorded. Please share with the list which approach has your preference and/or which modifications or alternative approaches should be added to this list of options. Once the SSC has agreed on an approach, you will also need to decide whether you intend to share the individual survey responses with the SSC or only the aggregated results as well as whether you intend to share these publicly. As noted on the call today, the charter foresees that “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”. We would like to ask you to share your feedback as soon as possible so that ideally the survey will be launched early next week to allow for review and discussion of the results during next week’s meeting (please remember to fill out the doodle poll that has been circulated by Nathalie). Best regards, Marika P.S. You will also find attached the updated summary document which now includes a column for gender.
Dear Marika, Good day, after reviewing both options in preview mode, I have decided my vote will be for "Option 2" as its more detailed in scope in evaluating the candidates. *Poncelet Ileleji Survey option Vote: Option 2* Kind Regards Poncelet On 31 March 2017 at 02:20, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following on from the call today, staff has gone ahead and created two (for now) possible approaches for a survey to review the candidates for the RDS Review Team:
· Option 1 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm= 0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid_2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K for a preview. This is a very straightforward approach which first asks two questions in relation to whether the candidate qualifies as a GNSO candidate (yes/no-don’t know) and whether the candidate has the necessary expertise and competence (yes/no-don’t know), followed by a ranking of the candidates. This approach is similar to the one used by the volunteers that reviewed the SSR2-RT candidates.
· Option 2 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm= 3yLMDGyDuJTXv7WxGEXYmZTUiaAeDz3ZMxJ6g2UuNK6V0_2FXUhfilY6EjEGBvPgJQ for a preview. This survey goes into a bit more detail as it asks to rank the candidates based on how the meet 1) the skills and expertise as outlined in the call for volunteers, and 2) the desired attributes as outlined in the call for volunteers. This option could be further refined by asking a ranking for each individual skill / expertise and/or desired attribute, but that would make the survey significantly longer and would also take you more time to complete. The aggregated score could be used to obtain an overall ranking based on the responses from all.
Note that these two options are in preview mode – any responses will not be recorded.
Please share with the list which approach has your preference and/or which modifications or alternative approaches should be added to this list of options.
Once the SSC has agreed on an approach, you will also need to decide whether you intend to share the individual survey responses with the SSC or only the aggregated results as well as whether you intend to share these publicly. As noted on the call today, the charter foresees that “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”.
We would like to ask you to share your feedback as soon as possible so that ideally the survey will be launched early next week to allow for review and discussion of the results during next week’s meeting (please remember to fill out the doodle poll that has been circulated by Nathalie).
Best regards,
Marika
P.S. You will also find attached the updated summary document which now includes a column for gender.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc
-- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
Hi Marisa Thank you very much for creating the two survey templates. I prefer the more detailed template option 2. What does the rest of the committee think? We need to move forward with one of the options today so that we all can fill out the survey before our call on Wednesday. Susan Sent from my iPad
On Mar 31, 2017, at 4:29 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji@ymca.gm> wrote:
Dear Marika,
Good day, after reviewing both options in preview mode, I have decided my vote will be for "Option 2" as its more detailed in scope in evaluating the candidates.
Poncelet Ileleji Survey option Vote: Option 2
Kind Regards
Poncelet
On 31 March 2017 at 02:20, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: Dear All,
Following on from the call today, staff has gone ahead and created two (for now) possible approaches for a survey to review the candidates for the RDS Review Team:
· Option 1 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY7... for a preview. This is a very straightforward approach which first asks two questions in relation to whether the candidate qualifies as a GNSO candidate (yes/no-don’t know) and whether the candidate has the necessary expertise and competence (yes/no-don’t know), followed by a ranking of the candidates. This approach is similar to the one used by the volunteers that reviewed the SSR2-RT candidates.
· Option 2 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=3yLMDGyDuJTXv7WxGEXYmZTUiaAeDz3ZM... for a preview. This survey goes into a bit more detail as it asks to rank the candidates based on how the meet 1) the skills and expertise as outlined in the call for volunteers, and 2) the desired attributes as outlined in the call for volunteers. This option could be further refined by asking a ranking for each individual skill / expertise and/or desired attribute, but that would make the survey significantly longer and would also take you more time to complete. The aggregated score could be used to obtain an overall ranking based on the responses from all.
Note that these two options are in preview mode – any responses will not be recorded.
Please share with the list which approach has your preference and/or which modifications or alternative approaches should be added to this list of options.
Once the SSC has agreed on an approach, you will also need to decide whether you intend to share the individual survey responses with the SSC or only the aggregated results as well as whether you intend to share these publicly. As noted on the call today, the charter foresees that “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”.
We would like to ask you to share your feedback as soon as possible so that ideally the survey will be launched early next week to allow for review and discussion of the results during next week’s meeting (please remember to fill out the doodle poll that has been circulated by Nathalie).
Best regards,
Marika
P.S. You will also find attached the updated summary document which now includes a column for gender.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc
-- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 www.diplointernetgovernance.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc
Hello All, In regards to the time we have, i would favor option 1. it is straight forwards, and then when we collect / cross the data, we could go into details for the candidates who don't meet consensus. For those with consensu, there is a gain of time. Best regards Frederic Le 31/03/2017 à 04:20, Marika Konings a écrit :
Dear All,
Following on from the call today, staff has gone ahead and created two (for now) possible approaches for a survey to review the candidates for the RDS Review Team:
·Option 1 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY7... for a preview. This is a very straightforward approach which first asks two questions in relation to whether the candidate qualifies as a GNSO candidate (yes/no-don’t know) and whether the candidate has the necessary expertise and competence (yes/no-don’t know), followed by a ranking of the candidates. This approach is similar to the one used by the volunteers that reviewed the SSR2-RT candidates.
·Option 2 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=3yLMDGyDuJTXv7WxGEXYmZTUiaAeDz3ZM... for a preview. This survey goes into a bit more detail as it asks to rank the candidates based on how the meet 1) the skills and expertise as outlined in the call for volunteers, and 2) the desired attributes as outlined in the call for volunteers. This option could be further refined by asking a ranking for each individual skill / expertise and/or desired attribute, but that would make the survey significantly longer and would also take you more time to complete. The aggregated score could be used to obtain an overall ranking based on the responses from all.
Note that these two options are in preview mode – any responses will not be recorded.
Please share with the list which approach has your preference and/or which modifications or alternative approaches should be added to this list of options.
Once the SSC has agreed on an approach, you will also need to decide whether you intend to share the individual survey responses with the SSC or only the aggregated results as well as whether you intend to share these publicly. As noted on the call today, the charter foresees that “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”.
We would like to ask you to share your feedback as soon as possible so that ideally the survey will be launched early next week to allow for review and discussion of the results during next week’s meeting (please remember to fill out the doodle poll that has been circulated by Nathalie).
Best regards,
Marika
**
P.S. You will also find attached the updated summary document which now includes a column for gender.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc
-- photo <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fredericguillemaut/> <http://twitter.com/safebrands> Frédéric Guillemaut Directeur Associé, SafeBrands Direct : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 07 <tel:Direct%20:%20+33%20%280%294%2088%2066%2022%2007> France : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 22 <tel:France%20:%20+33%20%280%294%2088%2066%2022%2022> Mobile : +33 (0)6 81 29 81 27 <tel:Mobile%20:%20+33%20%280%296%2081%2029%2081%2027> fg@safebrands.com <mailto:fg@safebrands.com> Skype: mailclub1 <#> www.safebrands.com <http://www.safebrands.com> Pôle Média de la Belle de Mai • 37 rue Guibal • 13003 Marseille • France <https://www.linkedin.com/in/fredericguillemaut/> N.B : En application des principes de respect de l'équilibre vie privée vie professionnelle à SafeBrands, les mails qu'il m'arrive d'envoyer en dehors des heures ou jours ouvrables n'appellent pas de réponse immédiate.
On 31-03-17 13:36, Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands wrote:
In regards to the time we have, i would favor option 1.
While I would advocate a more nuanced approach in the general case, in the case of this specific round I, too, favour option 1 for the sake of expediency considering the time constraints. Julf
Hi I would like also to favor option 1 I am also in favor of disclosing publicly individual scores and aggregated results. Best, Renata On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
On 31-03-17 13:36, Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands wrote:
In regards to the time we have, i would favor option 1.
While I would advocate a more nuanced approach in the general case, in the case of this specific round I, too, favour option 1 for the sake of expediency considering the time constraints.
Julf
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc
Dear Marika, I do not see affiliation with SO/AC , just GNSO (which is too broad), also there is no information about nominations from the relevant SO/AC , ... the only applicants supported are from GAC. Could you confirm that only GAC approved it's candidates, and SO/AC did not confirm support for candidates it via e-mail or other means? Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580 skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)
On Mar 31, 2017, at 05:20, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following on from the call today, staff has gone ahead and created two (for now) possible approaches for a survey to review the candidates for the RDS Review Team:
· Option 1 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY7... <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY7...> for a preview. This is a very straightforward approach which first asks two questions in relation to whether the candidate qualifies as a GNSO candidate (yes/no-don’t know) and whether the candidate has the necessary expertise and competence (yes/no-don’t know), followed by a ranking of the candidates. This approach is similar to the one used by the volunteers that reviewed the SSR2-RT candidates. · Option 2 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=3yLMDGyDuJTXv7WxGEXYmZTUiaAeDz3ZM... <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=3yLMDGyDuJTXv7WxGEXYmZTUiaAeDz3ZM...> for a preview. This survey goes into a bit more detail as it asks to rank the candidates based on how the meet 1) the skills and expertise as outlined in the call for volunteers, and 2) the desired attributes as outlined in the call for volunteers. This option could be further refined by asking a ranking for each individual skill / expertise and/or desired attribute, but that would make the survey significantly longer and would also take you more time to complete. The aggregated score could be used to obtain an overall ranking based on the responses from all.
Note that these two options are in preview mode – any responses will not be recorded.
Please share with the list which approach has your preference and/or which modifications or alternative approaches should be added to this list of options.
Once the SSC has agreed on an approach, you will also need to decide whether you intend to share the individual survey responses with the SSC or only the aggregated results as well as whether you intend to share these publicly. As noted on the call today, the charter foresees that “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”.
We would like to ask you to share your feedback as soon as possible so that ideally the survey will be launched early next week to allow for review and discussion of the results during next week’s meeting (please remember to fill out the doodle poll that has been circulated by Nathalie).
Best regards,
Marika
P.S. You will also find attached the updated summary document which now includes a column for gender. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc>
Correct - only the GAC has endorsed candidates to date (https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action?dest=%23page%2F63145857). Note that the summary document I circulated contains the GNSO affiliation that we derived from the application. We will be relying on you though to confirm with your respective groups that this is correct. Best regards, Marika On Mar 31, 2017, at 06:05, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Marika, I do not see affiliation with SO/AC , just GNSO (which is too broad), also there is no information about nominations from the relevant SO/AC , ... the only applicants supported are from GAC. Could you confirm that only GAC approved it's candidates, and SO/AC did not confirm support for candidates it via e-mail or other means? Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580 skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow) On Mar 31, 2017, at 05:20, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Following on from the call today, staff has gone ahead and created two (for now) possible approaches for a survey to review the candidates for the RDS Review Team: * Option 1 - See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid_2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_Preview_-3Fsm-3D0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid-5F2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=tcVNBEtx6PPdtmkjxH284HY_wbTozWVPyqMSlK8XSDQ&s=J5TWtx4EeMrhAMcdZx6tbWN0mvjlBM-NwywbTV3D_no&e=> for a preview. This is a very straightforward approach which first asks two questions in relation to whether the candidate qualifies as a GNSO candidate (yes/no-don't know) and whether the candidate has the necessary expertise and competence (yes/no-don't know), followed by a ranking of the candidates. This approach is similar to the one used by the volunteers that reviewed the SSR2-RT candidates. * Option 2 - See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=3yLMDGyDuJTXv7WxGEXYmZTUiaAeDz3ZMxJ6g2UuNK6V0_2FXUhfilY6EjEGBvPgJQ[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_Preview_-3Fsm-3D3yLMDGyDuJTXv7WxGEXYmZTUiaAeDz3ZMxJ6g2UuNK6V0-5F2FXUhfilY6EjEGBvPgJQ&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=tcVNBEtx6PPdtmkjxH284HY_wbTozWVPyqMSlK8XSDQ&s=Z6OX4y4R3xBTkv2wRV_TDyvMouCTckDJUbGFe0YWpxw&e=> for a preview. This survey goes into a bit more detail as it asks to rank the candidates based on how the meet 1) the skills and expertise as outlined in the call for volunteers, and 2) the desired attributes as outlined in the call for volunteers. This option could be further refined by asking a ranking for each individual skill / expertise and/or desired attribute, but that would make the survey significantly longer and would also take you more time to complete. The aggregated score could be used to obtain an overall ranking based on the responses from all. Note that these two options are in preview mode - any responses will not be recorded. Please share with the list which approach has your preference and/or which modifications or alternative approaches should be added to this list of options. Once the SSC has agreed on an approach, you will also need to decide whether you intend to share the individual survey responses with the SSC or only the aggregated results as well as whether you intend to share these publicly. As noted on the call today, the charter foresees that "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". We would like to ask you to share your feedback as soon as possible so that ideally the survey will be launched early next week to allow for review and discussion of the results during next week's meeting (please remember to fill out the doodle poll that has been circulated by Nathalie). Best regards, Marika P.S. You will also find attached the updated summary document which now includes a column for gender. <RDS RT Selection - Summary Document - updated 30 March 2017.docx> _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc
Hello Marika, Thank you for the confirmation. Were SO/AC leaders invited to confirm the support for candidates? P.s: I will reach out to RySG ExCom on this matter. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580 skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)
On Mar 31, 2017, at 16:04, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Correct - only the GAC has endorsed candidates to date (https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action?dest=%23page%2F63145857 <https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action?dest=#page/63145857>). Note that the summary document I circulated contains the GNSO affiliation that we derived from the application. We will be relying on you though to confirm with your respective groups that this is correct.
Best regards,
Marika
On Mar 31, 2017, at 06:05, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com <mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Marika,
I do not see affiliation with SO/AC , just GNSO (which is too broad), also there is no information about nominations from the relevant SO/AC , ... the only applicants supported are from GAC.
Could you confirm that only GAC approved it's candidates, and SO/AC did not confirm support for candidates it via e-mail or other means?
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580 skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)
On Mar 31, 2017, at 05:20, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,
Following on from the call today, staff has gone ahead and created two (for now) possible approaches for a survey to review the candidates for the RDS Review Team:
· Option 1 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid_2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K[surveymonkey.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_...> for a preview. This is a very straightforward approach which first asks two questions in relation to whether the candidate qualifies as a GNSO candidate (yes/no-don’t know) and whether the candidate has the necessary expertise and competence (yes/no-don’t know), followed by a ranking of the candidates. This approach is similar to the one used by the volunteers that reviewed the SSR2-RT candidates. · Option 2 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=3yLMDGyDuJTXv7WxGEXYmZTUiaAeDz3ZMxJ6g2UuNK6V0_2FXUhfilY6EjEGBvPgJQ[surveymonkey.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_...> for a preview. This survey goes into a bit more detail as it asks to rank the candidates based on how the meet 1) the skills and expertise as outlined in the call for volunteers, and 2) the desired attributes as outlined in the call for volunteers. This option could be further refined by asking a ranking for each individual skill / expertise and/or desired attribute, but that would make the survey significantly longer and would also take you more time to complete. The aggregated score could be used to obtain an overall ranking based on the responses from all.
Note that these two options are in preview mode – any responses will not be recorded.
Please share with the list which approach has your preference and/or which modifications or alternative approaches should be added to this list of options.
Once the SSC has agreed on an approach, you will also need to decide whether you intend to share the individual survey responses with the SSC or only the aggregated results as well as whether you intend to share these publicly. As noted on the call today, the charter foresees that “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”.
We would like to ask you to share your feedback as soon as possible so that ideally the survey will be launched early next week to allow for review and discussion of the results during next week’s meeting (please remember to fill out the doodle poll that has been circulated by Nathalie).
Best regards,
Marika
P.S. You will also find attached the updated summary document which now includes a column for gender. <RDS RT Selection - Summary Document - updated 30 March 2017.docx> _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc>
Hi Maxim, Yes, the SO/AC leaders have been requested to confirm their nominations by no later than 25 April, if possible, in view of a call of the SO/AC leaders shortly thereafter to confirm the selection of RDS Review Team members. Best regards, Marika From: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Date: Friday, March 31, 2017 at 07:10 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-ssc@icann.org" <gnso-ssc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-ssc] For your review - RDS RT evaluation survey options Hello Marika, Thank you for the confirmation. Were SO/AC leaders invited to confirm the support for candidates? P.s: I will reach out to RySG ExCom on this matter. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580 skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow) On Mar 31, 2017, at 16:04, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Correct - only the GAC has endorsed candidates to date (https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action?dest=%23page%2F63145857[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_m_mobile.action-3Fdest-3D-23page_63145857&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=whtAZwnsYqlQMvMHRFuWCcCEkTC_oD_2cAyvwDu8TL0&s=_MMnNZP5_fCh7q1UQn8cuNFHJXiwP0Q_E62jDBNHQzQ&e=>). Note that the summary document I circulated contains the GNSO affiliation that we derived from the application. We will be relying on you though to confirm with your respective groups that this is correct. Best regards, Marika On Mar 31, 2017, at 06:05, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Marika, I do not see affiliation with SO/AC , just GNSO (which is too broad), also there is no information about nominations from the relevant SO/AC , ... the only applicants supported are from GAC. Could you confirm that only GAC approved it's candidates, and SO/AC did not confirm support for candidates it via e-mail or other means? Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580 skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow) On Mar 31, 2017, at 05:20, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Following on from the call today, staff has gone ahead and created two (for now) possible approaches for a survey to review the candidates for the RDS Review Team: • Option 1 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid_2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_Preview_-3Fsm-3D0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid-5F2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=tcVNBEtx6PPdtmkjxH284HY_wbTozWVPyqMSlK8XSDQ&s=J5TWtx4EeMrhAMcdZx6tbWN0mvjlBM-NwywbTV3D_no&e=> for a preview. This is a very straightforward approach which first asks two questions in relation to whether the candidate qualifies as a GNSO candidate (yes/no-don’t know) and whether the candidate has the necessary expertise and competence (yes/no-don’t know), followed by a ranking of the candidates. This approach is similar to the one used by the volunteers that reviewed the SSR2-RT candidates. • Option 2 – See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=3yLMDGyDuJTXv7WxGEXYmZTUiaAeDz3ZMxJ6g2UuNK6V0_2FXUhfilY6EjEGBvPgJQ[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_Preview_-3Fsm-3D3yLMDGyDuJTXv7WxGEXYmZTUiaAeDz3ZMxJ6g2UuNK6V0-5F2FXUhfilY6EjEGBvPgJQ&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=tcVNBEtx6PPdtmkjxH284HY_wbTozWVPyqMSlK8XSDQ&s=Z6OX4y4R3xBTkv2wRV_TDyvMouCTckDJUbGFe0YWpxw&e=> for a preview. This survey goes into a bit more detail as it asks to rank the candidates based on how the meet 1) the skills and expertise as outlined in the call for volunteers, and 2) the desired attributes as outlined in the call for volunteers. This option could be further refined by asking a ranking for each individual skill / expertise and/or desired attribute, but that would make the survey significantly longer and would also take you more time to complete. The aggregated score could be used to obtain an overall ranking based on the responses from all. Note that these two options are in preview mode – any responses will not be recorded. Please share with the list which approach has your preference and/or which modifications or alternative approaches should be added to this list of options. Once the SSC has agreed on an approach, you will also need to decide whether you intend to share the individual survey responses with the SSC or only the aggregated results as well as whether you intend to share these publicly. As noted on the call today, the charter foresees that “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”. We would like to ask you to share your feedback as soon as possible so that ideally the survey will be launched early next week to allow for review and discussion of the results during next week’s meeting (please remember to fill out the doodle poll that has been circulated by Nathalie). Best regards, Marika P.S. You will also find attached the updated summary document which now includes a column for gender. <RDS RT Selection - Summary Document - updated 30 March 2017.docx> _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc
participants (7)
-
Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands -
Johan Helsingius -
Marika Konings -
Maxim Alzoba -
Poncelet Ileleji -
Renata Aquino Ribeiro -
Susan Kawaguchi