[NCUC-EC] Fwd: Update & Request: IRP Standing Panel selection (process for appointing GNSO representative to the Community Representatives Group)

[Olga Kyryliuk]

Hi Raphael,

Replying to questions raised in Mary's email I would say the following:

1) Given the timeframe and that the initial call resulted in only one expression of interest, I see it more reasonable to proceed with this single application without reopening the call, unless the candidate totally doesn't meet the criteria

2) And I also find it reasonable for the SSC decision to be approved by the GNSO  Council.

Best,
Olga 


17 декабря 2020, 20:58:50, от "Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix" <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com>:

Dear all, 
Something for your consideration (see especially the two questions asked by Mary Wong)

For more background on that issue, see one of my previous email to you and the general list regarding IRP standing panel and the GNSO SSC - although given the nature of the question, you do not actually need a lot of background on the whole thing to weigh in :)

Please provide me with your thoughts and comments by the 21st COB. 

Thanks, 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Date: Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM
Subject: Update & Request: IRP Standing Panel selection (process for appointing GNSO representative to the Community Representatives Group)
To: Selli, Claudia <claudia.selli at intl.att.com>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com>, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com>, aheineman at godaddy.com <aheineman at godaddy.com>, Demetriou, Samantha <sdemetriou at verisign.com>, chair at rysg.info <chair at rysg.info>, philippe.fouquart at orange.com <philippe.fouquart at orange.com>, Pamela Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>
Cc: Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Sue Schuler <secretariat at rysg.info>, Zoe Bonython <secretariat at icannregistrars.org>, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>


Dear GNSO community leaders,
 
I write to provide you with a brief update on where things stand as regards selecting the GNSO representative(s) to the new Community Representatives Group that will nominate the IRP Standing Panel for confirmation by the ICANN Board, as well as to convey a request for your consideration from the GNSO’s Standing Selection Committee (SSC).
 
Here is where we are in the process for the GNSO:
There was collective agreement to use the SSC as the mechanism for selecting the GNSO’s representative(s) to the Community Representatives Group; The SSC was notified and was able, at its meeting last week to briefly begin to consider how it might approach this task in accordance with its Charter; Based on your guidance, a few volunteers from this group worked with staff on a briefing document for the SSC; that document is now ready to be sent to the SSC to assist with its deliberations; At the close of the call for Expressions of Interest to serve on the Community Representatives Group, a total of six (6) applications were received: 2 for the ALAC, 2 for the GAC, and 1 each for the ccNSO and the GNSO; ICANN org has proposed to all SOACs that they complete their appointment(s) to the Community Representatives Group before 29 January 2021; the ALAC and the GAC have already confirmed both their representatives. It therefore remains for the ccNSO and the GNSO to complete their processes; and Staff will be sending to the ccNSO and GNSO (in this case, the SSC) the application packet of the individual who is applying for the group’s endorsement.  
At this stage, the SSC has asked staff to convey the following questions/requests to you as the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency leaders (with the addition of GNSO Council leadership for their information and input as necessary):
 
Do you think it necessary or advisable to re-open/extend the call for Expressions of Interest amongst the GNSO community, or are you comfortable with the SSC proceeding to consider a single application? Please note: 

Even if this group agrees to extend or expand the call, your decision will have to be communicated to the broader SOAC leadership and it is possible that they may nevertheless prefer that the GNSO complete its selection process by 29 January. Under its Charter, the SSC “is expected to provide its full consensus recommendations to the GNSO Council for consideration, which will make the ultimate determination on any appointments, selections and/or nominations”. This is the practice that is followed for, e.g., GNSO representatives on the Bylaws-mandated Review Teams. As such, but in view of the role and newness of the Community Representatives Group, do you agree that the SSC’s decision in this case should also follow the Chartered process and be sent to the GNSO Council for its confirmation? Please note: 

You can consider an additional step in this situation, where the Stakeholder Group and Constituency chairs have the opportunity to weigh in prior to the Council’s action, but in that case it will certainly create additional time pressure on the SSC. In this regard, it may be relevant to note that the SSC will likely not be able to realistically complete its deliberations in time for the Council’s 21 January 2021 meeting (for which motions and documents will be due on 11 January). The GNSO Council’s February meeting is set for 18 February – after the suggested 29 January deadline for appointments to the Community Representatives Group – and the document deadline for that Council meeting is 8 February.  
We will be grateful for your thoughts and comments at your earliest convenience. I have also cc’d the GNSO staff team that is supporting the SSC (Julie and Emily) in case they have any additional information or questions from the SSC.
 
Thank you!
 
Best regards,
Mary
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
NCUC-EC mailing list
NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20201221/d3f0a118/attachment.html>