[ispcp] Fwd: re: [council] Motion: Nomination of GNSO Candidates for SSR2-RT
- To: ispCp@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [ispcp] Fwd: re: [council] Motion: Nomination of GNSO Candidates for SSR2-RT
- From: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:31:44 +0100
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-id: ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
I think the GNSO shall be well represented with the suggested nominees
(Denise Michel, CSG; James Gannon, NCSG; Eric Osterwell, RySG). Please
send any question/comment you may have before the council meeting on 19 Jan.
In addition, Mark was applying on the ASO list. I'd be happy to see him
as well on the RT.
*From*: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent*: Monday, January 9, 2017 9:37 PM
*To*: "GNSO Council List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject*: [council] Motion: Nomination of GNSO Candidates for SSR2-RT
Attached and copied below, please find a motion for Council
consideration during our next call on 19 JAN 2017, which presents our
slate of candidates for the Security & Stability Review Team (SSR2-RT).
As you may recall from our DEC 2016 call, we decided to convene a small
group comprised of myself, Heather, Donna, Susan and Ed. This group was
tasked to evaluate submitted applications for our 3 Primary (guaranteed
to be seated) and 4 Alternate (may be seated based on need & diversity)
candidates, and bring these recommendations back to the Council. The
attached motion presents our findings.
Looking forward to discussing this during our next meeting.
*Nomination of GNSO Candidates for Second Security, Stability, and
Resiliency of the DNS (SSR2) Review Team*
1.On 30 June 2016, ICANN launched a call for volunteers seeking
individuals interested in serving as a Volunteer Review Team Member on
the SSR2-RT (see
2.Under the new Bylaws, each SO/AC participating in the Specific Review
may nominate up to 7 members to the review team, for consideration by
the SO/AC leadership, for a review team of no more than 21 members. Any
SO/AC nominating up to 3 individuals are entitled to have those nominees
selected as members to the review team, so long as the nominees meet the
applicable criteria for service on the team.
3.The GNSO Council formed a small team to review the candidates that
requested GNSO endorsement (see *https://community.icann.org/x/xRqsAw
<https://community.icann.org/x/xRqsAw%29>*) taking into account the
criteria outlined in the call for volunteers as well as the desire to
ensure a RT that is balanced for diversity and expertise. The small team
submitted its findings to the GNSO Council on [date].
4.The GNSO Council considered the findings of the small team.
1.The GNSO Council nominates (in alphabetical order): Denise Michel,
Eric Osterweil, James Gannon as its primary three candidates for the
SSR2-RT, noting that these candidates under the new ICANN Bylaws are
entitled to be selected. Furthermore, the GNSO nominates (in
alphabetical order): Emily Taylor, Howard Eland, Norm Ritchie, Scott
McCormick to be considered for inclusion in the SSR2-RT by the SO-AC
Chairs should additional places be available.
2.Noting the lack of diversity (gender, geographic) of the applicants,
the GNSO Council encourages Staff to explore ways to encourage gender
and geographic diversity in applications for future review teams.
3.The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate
resolved #1 and #2 to the staff supporting the SSR2-RT.
4.The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the
applicants that have received endorsement that the GNSO Council expects
that, if selected for the SSR2-RT, the applicant will represent the
views of the entire GNSO community in their work on the SSR2-RT, and
provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in
the SSR2-RT, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team
5.The GNSO Council requests staff supporting the SSR2-RT and application
process to send a response to those applicants who did not receive
endorsement (if any), thanking them for their interest. The response
should also encourage them to follow the SSR2-RT work, and participate
in Public Comments and community discussions.