Dear All, I do support the Frédéric's proposal (both in personal capacity and as an appointed person from RySG). P.s: Since that ranking was based on non correct voting (name of the poll did no go well with all candidates affiliation), and the description of methodology of how ICANN staff evaluated candidates (Expertise Criteria was quantitive but not based on relevance of expertise to the item reviewed) was sent to SCC only AFTER the poll we should not see the results as like they were set in stone and we might apply our judgement and reach consensus. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580 skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)

On Apr 12, 2017, at 18:30, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

All, please share your feedback on Frederic's proposal on the mailing list. In order to allow for some time for further discussion, staff will go ahead and circulate a doodle poll to schedule a meeting of the SSC coming Monday or Tuesday.

Best regards,

Marika

On Apr 12, 2017, at 09:22, Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands <fg@safebrands.com <mailto:fg@safebrands.com>> wrote:

...

Dear All

I am coming back to you regarding the selection that was issued by the team on Monday.

As i explained to you, i think the process should have taken one more validation step, as it was scheduled.

In fact, i still believe that this list, without any Registry or Registrar, on this matter, is not a wise solution, or at least does not send a right message of commitment to the community :

To solve that issue, as i suggested, we could switch seats 3 and 4 (or 5) to include either Marc or Volker. This way, the voice of the team would be stronger / have more credibility when they will have to push their ideas to other components of Icann.

This feeling is shared by both constituencies, and i really think it would be easier, to make this change within the team, to reach a consensus based decision, before having to present that list to the gnso.

That would not be the first time a list or guide is changed after publication, and to me it is for the better,

Please take that in consideration,

Best regards

--

[linkedin.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_fred...> [twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_safebrands&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FhDjsg3JqAMP_JF106qf4s2aRiGotIpno-txmZRCfpQ&s=zThuwbQxhTF2njLbUl0_z51HB9GVZB1EdLSizRHtr8I&e=>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 <x-msg://52/#> www.safebrands.com [safebrands.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.safebrands.com&d=DwM...> Pôle Média de la Belle de Mai • 37 rue Guibal • 13003 Marseille • France [linkedin.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_fre...>

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. _______________________________________________ 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>_______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc

Dear Poncelet, Do I understand you correctly - are you against the change suggested by Frédéric? Best Easter wishes! Julf On 13-04-17 16:26, Poncelet Ileleji wrote:

Dear Julf / (Colleagues)

I concur to your statement to and extent, but I wish to state that their was a general consensus that the top 4 got selected automatically. It was also agreed 5 to 7 a decision is taken based on criteria that to my understanding was agreed on and was communicated after our last call, so in my strong personal opinion to bring this up a again is very uncalled for especially when we had a call that this was agreed on.

Thank you and best wishes of Easter to all celebrating it.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 13 April 2017 at 13:42, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:

Dear Frédéric (and all),

So as far as I understand, you are suggesting making the list be:

1-3: Susan Kawaguchi, Erika Mann and Volker Greimann 4-7: Stephanie Perrin, Marc Anderson, Stefania Milan and Timothy Chen

That would be one person from the BC, one NCA and one RrSG appointee. I have to argue that that doesn't really improve the diversity, as it would create a situation where no non-commercial people are represented.

As such I don't have a strong feeling this way or that, but as the original top 3 all come with a much higher score than the people ranked 4-7, I fear we would be selecting less qualified people in the name of a non-existent improvement in diversity.

Julf

On 12-04-17 17:22, Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands wrote: > Dear All > > I am coming back to you regarding the selection that was issued by the > team on Monday. > > As i explained to you, i think the process should have taken one more > validation step, as it was scheduled. > > In fact, i still believe that this list, without any Registry or > Registrar, on this matter, is not a wise solution, or at least does not > send a right message of commitment to the community : > > To solve that issue, as i suggested, we could switch seats 3 and 4 (or > 5) to include either Marc or Volker. This way, the voice of the team > would be stronger / have more credibility when they will have to push > their ideas to other components of Icann. > > This feeling is shared by both constituencies, and i really think it > would be easier, to make this change within the team, to reach a > consensus based decision, before having to present that list to the gnso. > > That would not be the first time a list or guide is changed after > publication, and to me it is for the better, > > Please take that in consideration, > > > Best regards > > > > > -- > photo > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fredericguillemaut/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fredericguillemaut/>> <http://twitter.com/safebrands> > Frédéric Guillemaut > Directeur Associé, SafeBrands > > Direct : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 07 <tel:%2B33%20%280%294%2088%2066%2022%2007> > <tel:Direct%20:%20+33%20%280%294%2088%2066%2022%2007> > France : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 22 <tel:%2B33%20%280%294%2088%2066%2022%2022> > <tel:France%20:%20+33%20%280%294%2088%2066%2022%2022> > Mobile : +33 (0)6 81 29 81 27 <tel:%2B33%20%280%296%2081%2029%2081%2027> > <tel:Mobile%20:%20+33%20%280%296%2081%2029%2081%2027> > fg@safebrands.com <mailto:fg@safebrands.com> <mailto:fg@safebrands.com <mailto:fg@safebrands.com>> > Skype: mailclub1 <#> > www.safebrands.com <http://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/ <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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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> >

_______________________________________________ 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>

-- 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>

* *

Hello Julf, Do we want to sacrifice expertise in technical field and in operations, and knowledge of real life scenarios in sake of diversity? I do not belive that it will add value to the review team. -- Maxim Alzoba, Sent from my phone. Please excuse my typos. -------- Original Message -------- From: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> Sent: 13 April 2017 16:42:45 GMT+03:00 To: gnso-ssc@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ssc] SSC / Team review for RDS Dear Frédéric (and all), So as far as I understand, you are suggesting making the list be: 1-3: Susan Kawaguchi, Erika Mann and Volker Greimann 4-7: Stephanie Perrin, Marc Anderson, Stefania Milan and Timothy Chen That would be one person from the BC, one NCA and one RrSG appointee. I have to argue that that doesn't really improve the diversity, as it would create a situation where no non-commercial people are represented. As such I don't have a strong feeling this way or that, but as the original top 3 all come with a much higher score than the people ranked 4-7, I fear we would be selecting less qualified people in the name of a non-existent improvement in diversity. Julf On 12-04-17 17:22, Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands wrote:

Dear All

I am coming back to you regarding the selection that was issued by the team on Monday.

As i explained to you, i think the process should have taken one more validation step, as it was scheduled.

In fact, i still believe that this list, without any Registry or Registrar, on this matter, is not a wise solution, or at least does not send a right message of commitment to the community :

To solve that issue, as i suggested, we could switch seats 3 and 4 (or 5) to include either Marc or Volker. This way, the voice of the team would be stronger / have more credibility when they will have to push their ideas to other components of Icann.

This feeling is shared by both constituencies, and i really think it would be easier, to make this change within the team, to reach a consensus based decision, before having to present that list to the gnso.

That would not be the first time a list or guide is changed after publication, and to me it is for the better,

Please take that in consideration,

Best regards

-- 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.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc

Hi Julf , The ranking is as good as the information provided along with the voting . As I write it was conducted with mistakes. Since not all SSC members voted the same way - it was not consensus opinion. The ranking does not reflect more than formal opinion of voters summarised and divided by the number of candidates. And since the number of GNSO was wrong , even the numbers in report were incorrect. Experience could be established via additional information requests and via interviews , and definetely not by voting. If we sacrifice ability of the RT to conduct proper assessment (ability to make 'sanity checks' of ideas using the real life experience) of the procedures and policies in sake of diversity , then we fail our mission. If we are taking about balance , there are no single representative currently at guaranteed 3 seat from the Contracted Party House and I do not belive it is a balanced approach to diversity. -- Maxim Alzoba, Sent from my phone. Please excuse my typos. -------- Original Message -------- From: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> Sent: 13 April 2017 17:55:12 GMT+03:00 To: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com>, gnso-ssc@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ssc] SSC / Team review for RDS Hi, Maxim,

Do we want to sacrifice expertise in technical field and in operations, and knowledge of real life scenarios in sake of diversity?

I am assuming that the ranking in our survey reflects the expertise and experience.

I do not belive that it will add value to the review team.

I think the issue is that the diversity argument can be used both to argue for changing the recommendation and to argue for not changing it. Julf

Julf, please find my answers below

On Apr 13, 2017, at 18:17, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:

Maxim,

...

The ranking is as good as the information provided along with the voting . As I write it was conducted with mistakes. Since not all SSC members voted the same way - it was not consensus opinion.

Can you please help me understand this? What mistakes were there that affected the voting?

Here are some basic bits: 1. The name used for voting was wrong "Evaluation of GNSO Candidates for RDS Review Team (option 1)" (not all candidates had something to do with GNSO ) 2. Icann staff did not check information about candidates (3 did not belong to GNSO, thus the total scores of Q5 were wrong, it was division by 14 instead of division by 11, and it is quite simple math). 3. Methodology used by Icann staff for adding label (fits all requirements/some / most ), was not clear and might have caused confusion and this info was delivered only after the poll and only after the additional request to do so. In situation where the voting conducted incorrectly - the results are compromised. to say more, my notes, which were provided with the poll were not reflected, whilst in our Charter minority views need to be reflected. (Art 8, Section IV) The same text I asked Marika to add to the results.. it was not done And if you check the URL on our page https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/RDS+Review+Team https://ru.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L2VBBBLB/ the notes are not visible, despite being the part of the poll form. In my opinion it is enough to say that we should stick to our Charter and try to fix it.

...

If we sacrifice ability of the RT to conduct proper assessment (ability to make 'sanity checks' of ideas using the real life experience) of the procedures and policies in sake of diversity, then we fail our mission.

I agree, but as I pointed out, the diversity argument can be made both ways.

Here I have to agree with you, unfortunately we have too many different groups for such small number of seats, and it is quite disappointing in my opinion.

...

If we are taking about balance, there are no single representative currently at guaranteed 3 seat from the Contracted Party House and I do not belive it is a balanced approach to diversity.

But if we do the proposed change, there would not be a single representative of the non-commercial / non-business constituencies. Not sure that would be balanced either.

As long as we can't have enough seats for all constituencies there will always be some sort of imbalance. The question is what degree, and what kind of imbalance we can accept. In my view, Erika Mann, being "above" both houses, helps address any imbalances.

I do not think that being above is the right justification here. Does Erika act as a representative of the RySG or RrSG? - I do not think so. After all we do not select persons for just being Directors, and the ex Roles of Directors of policy are not necessarily reflect technical experience (it is more for CTOs, and CIOs usually).

Julf

Thanks, Mary. If I may also remind you of the following provision in the SSC Charter: · The SSC shall strive as far as possible to achieve balance, representativeness, diversity and sufficient expertise appropriate for the applicable selection process. In order to achieve balance and diversity on the Review Teams, the SSC is strongly encouraged to employ a system of rotation to Review Team selections. Any Stakeholder Group which nominated candidates(s) for a Review Team but did not have a candidate selected for that Review Team shall be preferred as a qualified applicant from their Stakeholder Group for one of the three guaranteed slots for the next GNSO Review Team appointment processes. Even though the SSC was not responsible for the selection of the candidates for the SSR2-RT, you may want to factor this into your continued deliberations to achieve full consensus on the candidates to be proposed for the RDS RT? The following community members, including their respective affiliation were selected for the SSR2-RT following GNSO endorsement: James Gannon (NCSG), Denise Michel (CSG – BC), Emily Taylor (RrSG). As a reminder, based on the initial survey and deliberations, the SSC ranked the proposed candidates for the RDS RT as follows: 1-3: Susan Kawaguchi (CSG – BC), Erika Mann (non-affiliated – non-voting Nominating Committee member to the GNSO Council), Stephanie Perrin (NCSG), 4) Volker Greimann (RrSG), 5) Marc Anderson (RySG), Stefania Milan (NCSG) and Timothy Chen (CSG – BC). It may also be worth noting that for this specific review, no requests for endorsement were received from the ASO, RSSAC and SSAC which means that at least in theory there will be additional seats available. It will however be up to the SO/AC chairs to decide whether or not to fill these additional seats. Best regards, Marika On 4/13/17, 11:49, "gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Mary Wong" <gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org on behalf of mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: Hello everyone, Although I am not the primary staff support for this Committee I thought it might be helpful to quickly address the concerns Maxim has raised relating to the staff assessment and GNSO affiliation of the candidates. My understanding is that whether a particular candidate who was seeking endorsement from the GNSO can indeed be considered a GNSO-affiliated candidate was the first question posed to SSC members on the survey. This was to therefore assist the SSC in evaluating which of the 14 candidates seeking GNSO endorsement ought to be nominated (along with the other questions about expertise and experience). In relation to the staff assessment and methodology used, on 4 April Marika circulated information provided by our colleagues from the Multistakeholder Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department who are coordinating the Review Teams. I attach the email again for your reference. I hope this is helpful as the SSC continues to finalize its latest discussions. Please be reminded that the GNSO Council meets to discuss the topic on 20 April, so any additional guidance the Committee may wish to provide should ideally be submitted to the Council as soon as possible. Thanks and cheers Mary On 4/13/17, 11:48, "gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Maxim Alzoba" <gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org on behalf of m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote: Julf, please find my answers below > On Apr 13, 2017, at 18:17, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote: > > Maxim, > >> The ranking is as good as the information provided along with >> the voting . As I write it was conducted with mistakes. Since not >> all SSC members voted the same way - it was not consensus opinion. > > Can you please help me understand this? What mistakes were there > that affected the voting? Here are some basic bits: 1. The name used for voting was wrong "Evaluation of GNSO Candidates for RDS Review Team (option 1)" (not all candidates had something to do with GNSO ) 2. Icann staff did not check information about candidates (3 did not belong to GNSO, thus the total scores of Q5 were wrong, it was division by 14 instead of division by 11, and it is quite simple math). 3. Methodology used by Icann staff for adding label (fits all requirements/some / most ), was not clear and might have caused confusion and this info was delivered only after the poll and only after the additional request to do so. In situation where the voting conducted incorrectly - the results are compromised. to say more, my notes, which were provided with the poll were not reflected, whilst in our Charter minority views need to be reflected. (Art 8, Section IV) The same text I asked Marika to add to the results.. it was not done And if you check the URL on our page https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ru.surveymonkey.com_res... the notes are not visible, despite being the part of the poll form. In my opinion it is enough to say that we should stick to our Charter and try to fix it. > >> If we sacrifice ability of the RT to conduct proper assessment >> (ability to make 'sanity checks' of ideas using the real life >> experience) of the procedures and policies in sake of diversity, >> then we fail our mission. > > I agree, but as I pointed out, the diversity argument can be > made both ways. Here I have to agree with you, unfortunately we have too many different groups for such small number of seats, and it is quite disappointing in my opinion. > >> If we are taking about balance, there are no single representative >> currently at guaranteed 3 seat from the Contracted Party House >> and I do not belive it is a balanced approach to diversity. > > But if we do the proposed change, there would not be a single > representative of the non-commercial / non-business constituencies. > Not sure that would be balanced either. > > As long as we can't have enough seats for all constituencies there > will always be some sort of imbalance. The question is what degree, > and what kind of imbalance we can accept. In my view, Erika Mann, > being "above" both houses, helps address any imbalances. I do not think that being above is the right justification here. Does Erika act as a representative of the RySG or RrSG? - I do not think so. After all we do not select persons for just being Directors, and the ex Roles of Directors of policy are not necessarily reflect technical experience (it is more for CTOs, and CIOs usually). > > Julf > _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc

That will only be known after all SO/ACs have confirmed their nominations. At that stage, the SO/AC Chairs are expected to meet to confirm the final slate of RT members. As indicated before, the SO/AC Chairs can nominate up to 21 RT members (but there is no obligation to do so). As the Bylaws state: “If any Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee has not nominated at least three prospective review team members, the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees shall be responsible for the determination of whether all 21 SO/AC member seats shall be filled and, if so, how the seats should be allocated from among those nominated”. Best regards, Marika On 4/16/17, 18:22, "Renata Aquino Ribeiro" <raquino@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Hello Thanks for the info. About this: On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: > > It may also be worth noting that for this specific review, no requests for > endorsement were received from the ASO, RSSAC and SSAC which means that at > least in theory there will be additional seats available. It will however be > up to the SO/AC chairs to decide whether or not to fill these additional > seats. When can we know if they will decide not to fill these seats? Thanks

Sorry I couldn't either. I just came back from other meeting and tried to connect to the call but it seems it already ended. Best regards, Osvaldo Enviado desde mi iPhone El 17 abr. 2017, a las 10:55, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> escribió: My sincere apologies for missing today’s call. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman <image001.jpg> From: gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 3:52 AM To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino@gmail.com<mailto:raquino@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ssc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ssc] [Ext] Re: SSC / Team review for RDS That will only be known after all SO/ACs have confirmed their nominations. At that stage, the SO/AC Chairs are expected to meet to confirm the final slate of RT members. As indicated before, the SO/AC Chairs can nominate up to 21 RT members (but there is no obligation to do so). As the Bylaws state: “If any Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee has not nominated at least three prospective review team members, the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees shall be responsible for the determination of whether all 21 SO/AC member seats shall be filled and, if so, how the seats should be allocated from among those nominated”. Best regards, Marika On 4/16/17, 18:22, "Renata Aquino Ribeiro" <raquino@gmail.com><mailto:raquino@gmail.com%3e> wrote: Hi Hello Thanks for the info. About this: On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org%3e> wrote:

It may also be worth noting that for this specific review, no requests for endorsement were received from the ASO, RSSAC and SSAC which means that at least in theory there will be additional seats available. It will however be up to the SO/AC chairs to decide whether or not to fill these additional seats.

When can we know if they will decide not to fill these seats? Thanks _______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ssc@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc _______________________________________________ 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.

Dear All, That is my suggestion, indeed. And i think : - it acts for improving diversity as it includes one member from the contracted parties - it acts for the future as it include people who will have to make the implementation and have the background of 25 + years of whois management (registries / registrars) . We have sometimes seen guidelines that became nightmares to implement for a day to day use. So my suggestion, i think, does not weaken the technical expertise, and i think the 'ground experience' of whois was left aside (as it is difficult to measure) in the notes. So, i think we should look at it in that way, Best regards Frederic Le 13/04/2017 à 15:42, Johan Helsingius a écrit :

Dear Frédéric (and all),

So as far as I understand, you are suggesting making the list be:

1-3: Susan Kawaguchi, Erika Mann and Volker Greimann 4-7: Stephanie Perrin, Marc Anderson, Stefania Milan and Timothy Chen

That would be one person from the BC, one NCA and one RrSG appointee. I have to argue that that doesn't really improve the diversity, as it would create a situation where no non-commercial people are represented.

As such I don't have a strong feeling this way or that, but as the original top 3 all come with a much higher score than the people ranked 4-7, I fear we would be selecting less qualified people in the name of a non-existent improvement in diversity.

Julf

On 12-04-17 17:22, Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands wrote:

...

Dear All

I am coming back to you regarding the selection that was issued by the team on Monday.

As i explained to you, i think the process should have taken one more validation step, as it was scheduled.

In fact, i still believe that this list, without any Registry or Registrar, on this matter, is not a wise solution, or at least does not send a right message of commitment to the community :

To solve that issue, as i suggested, we could switch seats 3 and 4 (or 5) to include either Marc or Volker. This way, the voice of the team would be stronger / have more credibility when they will have to push their ideas to other components of Icann.

This feeling is shared by both constituencies, and i really think it would be easier, to make this change within the team, to reach a consensus based decision, before having to present that list to the gnso.

That would not be the first time a list or guide is changed after publication, and to me it is for the better,

Please take that in consideration,

Best regards

-- 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.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc

_______________________________________________ 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.