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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

See my responses below.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:45 AM
> To: Caroline Greer
> Cc: zahid@xxxxxxxxx; Olga Cavalli; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the 
> Position of Volunteer Review Team Member
> 
> 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.

Chuck: I also agree with this.

> > 
> > 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.

Chuck: An SG would not necessarily have to choose someone who is
directly associated with their group.  In fact, that might be a positive
if they didn't.  I personally believe that we should try to identify
candidates that we believe have the best chances of being selected by
Peter and Janis in the case of the first review. And I think it would be
smart to focus only on the first review at this time because we can then
use the results of the selectors decisions to help us for the other
panels.

> 
> 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...

Chuck: I favor establishing a process and qualifications before seeking
volunteers.

> 
> > 
> > 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
> 
>