Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer Review Team Member

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

On Jan 14, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Caroline Greer wrote:

> 
> My preference would be to go about this in a more structured way. Otherwise, 
> we issue a call, three people (example number) step forward and where does 
> that leave us?

I agree, and think we should hold off on names for now.  And also remember that 
this is open to people in the GNSO community, not just councilors, so we can't 
have a process where some of us quickly put our names forward in a manner that 
might discourage non-councilors from even considering it.
> 
> One approach that was suggested by Kristina yesterday and which I quite like 
> the more I think about it, would be to have each of the 4 SGs in the GNSO 
> nominate a representative (having been through their own internal call and 
> evaluation process) and then let the Selectors choose one RT member from that 
> pool. That RT member would then represent the GNSO and not its SG. 

This has obvious appeal, but there are stakeholders in the larger GNSO 
community whose positioning within one of the four has been an issue.  And 
there could be others who don't particularly see themselves as fitting into 
just one box etc.  So if each SG goes off and does its own internal process and 
that's it, we could end up erecting barriers to entry, real or perceived.

Perhaps it'd make more sense to do an open call, then allocate the apps 
received across the four, set some procedure to deal with any that don't fit 
easily (maybe it won't even be an issue, but we can't know ex ante), and then 
do intra-SG consultations to arrive at nominees?  

Alternatively, we could do a dreaded nomcom...

> 
> My concern is the tight timeline. Perhaps we ought to arrange another call to 
> discuss this element of the project (we focused more on our comments on the 
> Proposal yesterday).

I've just sat down to write to Caroline and Zahid about the text we're supposed 
to draft in the next couple days and see there's a bunch of messages taking up 
points the text would need to address.  Maybe it'd be better to let us to the 
pull that together as a starting point and then add/change here?

Best,

Bill