Re: [Gnso-ssc] For your review - RDS RT evaluation survey options
All, so far the feedback is as follows: Preference for option 1: Julf, Frederick, Renata Preference for option 2: Poncelet Can you please weigh in as soon as possible so we are able to launch the survey with sufficient time before the next meeting? We will also need your feedback concerning how the results are shared. Renate has already indicated that she prefers the survey results, including individual responses to be shared publicly. Best regards, Marika From: <gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 20:20 To: "gnso-ssc@icann.org" <gnso-ssc@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ssc] 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=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid_2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_Preview_-3Fsm-3D0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid-5F2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2zNUmJODrxcFaE9ZlN-Gx2Ku8s1bE0nCPqcUT4GYQ74&s=Q8Nn4WU6CuYLmVysl8yVLg-C6A5t4pLc9_hCNvZvwAc&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=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2zNUmJODrxcFaE9ZlN-Gx2Ku8s1bE0nCPqcUT4GYQ74&s=wPB5kUKuUiCZj5IX0W24JOGRccTZsjw8FU76kLhm6TQ&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.
We will also need your feedback concerning how the results are shared.
I am of two minds on this one. In general I am strongly for openness and transparency, but when we are talking about individual opinions of other people, it gets tricky. I suggest we share evaluations of official criteria ("does this person meet criteria X"), but if there are any subjective evaluations, we might want to avoid sharing that. Julf
Hello I agree, Frederic Le 03/04/2017 à 15:25, Johan Helsingius a écrit :
We will also need your feedback concerning how the results are shared. I am of two minds on this one. In general I am strongly for openness and transparency, but when we are talking about individual opinions of other people, it gets tricky. I suggest we share evaluations of official criteria ("does this person meet criteria X"), but if there are any subjective evaluations, we might want to avoid sharing that.
Julf
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hello All I would prefer option 2 of the survey monkey template but I am fine with option 2 also. I agree that the survey results should be transparent and shared if requested. Hopefully, the others will chime in soon and we can all start working on reviewing the candidates, filling out the survey in prep for the Wednesday call Susan Sent from my iPhone On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:17 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: All, so far the feedback is as follows: Preference for option 1: Julf, Frederick, Renata Preference for option 2: Poncelet Can you please weigh in as soon as possible so we are able to launch the survey with sufficient time before the next meeting? We will also need your feedback concerning how the results are shared. Renate has already indicated that she prefers the survey results, including individual responses to be shared publicly. Best regards, Marika From: <gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 20:20 To: "gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org>" <gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ssc] 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=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid_2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_Preview_-3Fsm-3D0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid-5F2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2zNUmJODrxcFaE9ZlN-Gx2Ku8s1bE0nCPqcUT4GYQ74&s=Q8Nn4WU6CuYLmVysl8yVLg-C6A5t4pLc9_hCNvZvwAc&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=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2zNUmJODrxcFaE9ZlN-Gx2Ku8s1bE0nCPqcUT4GYQ74&s=wPB5kUKuUiCZj5IX0W24JOGRccTZsjw8FU76kLhm6TQ&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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
Correction - I would prefer option 2 of the survey monkey template but I am fine with option 1 also. On Apr 3, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>> wrote: Hello All I would prefer option 2 of the survey monkey template but I am fine with option 2 also. I agree that the survey results should be transparent and shared if requested. Hopefully, the others will chime in soon and we can all start working on reviewing the candidates, filling out the survey in prep for the Wednesday call Susan Sent from my iPhone On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:17 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: All, so far the feedback is as follows: Preference for option 1: Julf, Frederick, Renata Preference for option 2: Poncelet Can you please weigh in as soon as possible so we are able to launch the survey with sufficient time before the next meeting? We will also need your feedback concerning how the results are shared. Renate has already indicated that she prefers the survey results, including individual responses to be shared publicly. Best regards, Marika From: <gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 20:20 To: "gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org>" <gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ssc] 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=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid_2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_Preview_-3Fsm-3D0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid-5F2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2zNUmJODrxcFaE9ZlN-Gx2Ku8s1bE0nCPqcUT4GYQ74&s=Q8Nn4WU6CuYLmVysl8yVLg-C6A5t4pLc9_hCNvZvwAc&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=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2zNUmJODrxcFaE9ZlN-Gx2Ku8s1bE0nCPqcUT4GYQ74&s=wPB5kUKuUiCZj5IX0W24JOGRccTZsjw8FU76kLhm6TQ&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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... Sent from my iPhone
Hello All, Looks like we have 3 phone calls scheduled but haven’t made a firm decision on the Surveymonkey template. Unless I missed an email today Julf, Frederick, Renata and I support Option 1. Since we are limited on time I would suggest that we move ahead now with Option 1 and have staff send out the SurveyMonkey to the SSC. Let me know, if any one opposes this step forward. Susan From: <gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com> Date: Monday, April 3, 2017 at 10:28 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-ssc@icann.org" <gnso-ssc@icann.org> Subject: [Potential Spoof] Re: [Gnso-ssc] [Potential Spoof] Re: For your review - RDS RT evaluation survey options Correction - I would prefer option 2 of the survey monkey template but I am fine with option 1 also. On Apr 3, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>> wrote: Hello All I would prefer option 2 of the survey monkey template but I am fine with option 2 also. I agree that the survey results should be transparent and shared if requested. Hopefully, the others will chime in soon and we can all start working on reviewing the candidates, filling out the survey in prep for the Wednesday call Susan Sent from my iPhone On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:17 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: All, so far the feedback is as follows: Preference for option 1: Julf, Frederick, Renata Preference for option 2: Poncelet Can you please weigh in as soon as possible so we are able to launch the survey with sufficient time before the next meeting? We will also need your feedback concerning how the results are shared. Renate has already indicated that she prefers the survey results, including individual responses to be shared publicly. Best regards, Marika From: <gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 20:20 To: "gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org>" <gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ssc] 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=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid_2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_Preview_-3Fsm-3D0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid-5F2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2zNUmJODrxcFaE9ZlN-Gx2Ku8s1bE0nCPqcUT4GYQ74&s=Q8Nn4WU6CuYLmVysl8yVLg-C6A5t4pLc9_hCNvZvwAc&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=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2zNUmJODrxcFaE9ZlN-Gx2Ku8s1bE0nCPqcUT4GYQ74&s=wPB5kUKuUiCZj5IX0W24JOGRccTZsjw8FU76kLhm6TQ&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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... Sent from my iPhone
Hello All, I agree with this move, but do we really have three conf calls ? Or are they three occasions to meet for those who were not available ? Best Frederic Le 04/04/2017 à 00:26, Susan Kawaguchi a écrit :
Hello All,
Looks like we have 3 phone calls scheduled but haven’t made a firm decision on the Surveymonkey template.
Unless I missed an email today Julf, Frederick, Renata and I support Option 1.
Since we are limited on time I would suggest that we move ahead now with Option 1 and have staff send out the SurveyMonkey to the SSC.
Let me know, if any one opposes this step forward.
Susan
*From: *<gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com> *Date: *Monday, April 3, 2017 at 10:28 AM *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-ssc@icann.org" <gnso-ssc@icann.org> *Subject: *[Potential Spoof] Re: [Gnso-ssc] [Potential Spoof] Re: For your review - RDS RT evaluation survey options
Correction -
I would prefer option 2 of the survey monkey template but I am fine with option 1 also. On Apr 3, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com>> wrote:
Hello All
I would prefer option 2 of the survey monkey template but I am fine with option 2 also.
I agree that the survey results should be transparent and shared if requested.
Hopefully, the others will chime in soon and we can all start working on reviewing the candidates, filling out the survey in prep for the Wednesday call
Susan
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:17 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote:
All, so far the feedback is as follows:
Preference for option 1: Julf, Frederick, Renata
Preference for option 2: Poncelet
Can you please weigh in as soon as possible so we are able to launch the survey with sufficient time before the next meeting? We will also need your feedback concerning how the results are shared. Renate has already indicated that she prefers the survey results, including individual responses to be shared publicly.
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *<gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> *Date: *Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 20:20 *To: *"gnso-ssc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org>" <gnso-ssc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org>> *Subject: *[Gnso-ssc] 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=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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hello Frederic, The three calls are scheduled to allow for enough time for deliberation before Monday’s deadline. However, if the group is able to agree on the nominations during the first or second call, the other meeting(s) may get cancelled. For now the most important thing was to get this time into your calendars. Best regards, Marika From: <gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands <fg@safebrands.com> Organization: SafeBrands Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 00:50 To: "gnso-ssc@icann.org" <gnso-ssc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ssc] [Potential Spoof] Re: [Potential Spoof] Re: For your review - RDS RT evaluation survey options Hello All, I agree with this move, but do we really have three conf calls ? Or are they three occasions to meet for those who were not available ? Best Frederic Le 04/04/2017 à 00:26, Susan Kawaguchi a écrit : Hello All, Looks like we have 3 phone calls scheduled but haven’t made a firm decision on the Surveymonkey template. Unless I missed an email today Julf, Frederick, Renata and I support Option 1. Since we are limited on time I would suggest that we move ahead now with Option 1 and have staff send out the SurveyMonkey to the SSC. Let me know, if any one opposes this step forward. Susan From: <gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com><mailto:susank@fb.com> Date: Monday, April 3, 2017 at 10:28 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-ssc@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org> <gnso-ssc@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org> Subject: [Potential Spoof] Re: [Gnso-ssc] [Potential Spoof] Re: For your review - RDS RT evaluation survey options Correction - I would prefer option 2 of the survey monkey template but I am fine with option 1 also. On Apr 3, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>> wrote: Hello All I would prefer option 2 of the survey monkey template but I am fine with option 2 also. I agree that the survey results should be transparent and shared if requested. Hopefully, the others will chime in soon and we can all start working on reviewing the candidates, filling out the survey in prep for the Wednesday call Susan Sent from my iPhone On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:17 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: All, so far the feedback is as follows: Preference for option 1: Julf, Frederick, Renata Preference for option 2: Poncelet Can you please weigh in as soon as possible so we are able to launch the survey with sufficient time before the next meeting? We will also need your feedback concerning how the results are shared. Renate has already indicated that she prefers the survey results, including individual responses to be shared publicly. Best regards, Marika From: <gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 20:20 To: "gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org>" <gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ssc] 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=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid_2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_Preview_-3Fsm-3D0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid-5F2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2zNUmJODrxcFaE9ZlN-Gx2Ku8s1bE0nCPqcUT4GYQ74&s=Q8Nn4WU6CuYLmVysl8yVLg-C6A5t4pLc9_hCNvZvwAc&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=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2zNUmJODrxcFaE9ZlN-Gx2Ku8s1bE0nCPqcUT4GYQ74&s=wPB5kUKuUiCZj5IX0W24JOGRccTZsjw8FU76kLhm6TQ&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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc -- [hoto] [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/frames/frame_bubble_le...] [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/icons_32/linkedin.png][linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_fredericguillemaut_&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=x5YQUi0LO6ct5qFQSoD1fO0AqEOo6W_BLi8HiB5jxVs&s=9qqZboBeScrLNbBjNtE68XtFlWU0pDOOzbv-wuH-pIQ&e=> [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/icons_32/twitter.png] [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_safebrands&d...> Frédéric Guillemaut Directeur Associé, SafeBrands [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/phone2.png]Direct : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 07 <tel:Direct%20:%20+33%20%280%294%2088%2066%2022%2007> [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/phone2.png]France : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 22 <tel:France%20:%20+33%20%280%294%2088%2066%2022%2022> [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/mobile.png]Mobile : +33 (0)6 81 29 81 27 <tel:Mobile%20:%20+33%20%280%296%2081%2029%2081%2027> [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/email1.png]fg@safebrands.com <mailto:fg@safebrands.com> [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/social.png]Skype: mailclub1 [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/website.png]www.safebrands.com [safebrands.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.safebrands.com&d=DwM...> [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/address1.png]Pôle Média de la Belle de Mai • 37 rue Guibal • 13003 Marseille • France [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/apps/linkedin_connect.png][linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_fredericguillemaut_&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=x5YQUi0LO6ct5qFQSoD1fO0AqEOo6W_BLi8HiB5jxVs&s=IEmjTo2wE3_qYYL6lC8ETXPFbq0qopyTKQTGCNMMcCg&e=> 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.
Hello Marika, I will go now with the majority on Option 1 so we have a consensus. Kind Regards Poncelet On 3 April 2017 at 13:16, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
All, so far the feedback is as follows:
Preference for option 1: Julf, Frederick, Renata
Preference for option 2: Poncelet
Can you please weigh in as soon as possible so we are able to launch the survey with sufficient time before the next meeting? We will also need your feedback concerning how the results are shared. Renate has already indicated that she prefers the survey results, including individual responses to be shared publicly.
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *<gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings < marika.konings@icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 20:20 *To: *"gnso-ssc@icann.org" <gnso-ssc@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-ssc] 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= 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.
_______________________________________________ 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
Hello all, Sorry I didn’t´t answer before but I am traveling, right now in Miami, and have very little free time. I prefer option 1 due to the short time we have. I am not very happy to make the results public since it can be sensitive to the candidates, I would prefer just to publish the overall results and let any candidate that asks for to see his own results. Again, I´m sorry to answer so late. Best regards, Osvaldo El 3 abr. 2017, a las 14:12, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji@ymca.gm<mailto:pileleji@ymca.gm>> escribió: Hello Marika, I will go now with the majority on Option 1 so we have a consensus. Kind Regards Poncelet On 3 April 2017 at 13:16, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: All, so far the feedback is as follows: Preference for option 1: Julf, Frederick, Renata Preference for option 2: Poncelet Can you please weigh in as soon as possible so we are able to launch the survey with sufficient time before the next meeting? We will also need your feedback concerning how the results are shared. Renate has already indicated that she prefers the survey results, including individual responses to be shared publicly. Best regards, Marika From: <gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 20:20 To: "gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org>" <gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ssc] 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=0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid_2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_Preview_-3Fsm-3D0hjSAi4ZCoUvdD2Kv0gANdf5YVqJkYkY72BakcBodNIid-5F2FUGWhFFHZYmxyB7zn0K&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2zNUmJODrxcFaE9ZlN-Gx2Ku8s1bE0nCPqcUT4GYQ74&s=Q8Nn4WU6CuYLmVysl8yVLg-C6A5t4pLc9_hCNvZvwAc&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=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=2zNUmJODrxcFaE9ZlN-Gx2Ku8s1bE0nCPqcUT4GYQ74&s=wPB5kUKuUiCZj5IX0W24JOGRccTZsjw8FU76kLhm6TQ&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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto: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/ 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 www.diplointernetgovernance.org<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/> _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
participants (6)
-
Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands -
Johan Helsingius -
Marika Konings -
Novoa, Osvaldo -
Poncelet Ileleji -
Susan Kawaguchi