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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The only driver is the timeline set in the AOC for the RTs. For the Acc. and 
Transp. RT it's definitely end of 2010. That's why I feel some understanding to 
the boards pressure to get the whole thing started asap.
I sympathize with the idea of each SG nominating 1 representative per RT. We 
could ask the SGs to rank their preferences to be included. The selectors 
should ensure that different RTs shall be covered by different SGs in case they 
stick to 1 GNSO member per RT only.
At least 1 GNSO representative to the stability and security RT should also be 
a must.

The ISPCP constituency shall discuss the process as well as come up with 
potential volunteers by next week followed by co-ordination within the CSG.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich 



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2010 16:39
An: Tim Ruiz; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer 
Review Team Member


"So making this call seems to say that the Board isn't really interested in 
analyzing the comments and adjusting the draft."    Completely agree and 
particularly ironic that they do so for the Accountability and Transparency 
review team.

Not sure if I agree (on the fence) w/r/t contracted and non contracted party 
reps on each team. Either way, will be a hard sell, I think.

Will be offline for the better part of today b/c of client meetings, but will 
read through all postings tonight.  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:14 AM
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer 
Review Team Member


Agree. But what really bothers about this call is that there is only a 
discussion draft posted and it is open for public comment until 31 January. So 
making this call seems to say that the Board isn't really interested in 
analyzing the comments and adjusting the draft.

One of the biggest problems I see with it is the size of teams. I agree that 
they should be kept reasonably small, but given the diversity of stakeholders I 
think they are too small. For example, only one GNSO related volunteer is 
allowed. I strongly believe that both contracted and non-contracted parties 
(both Houses) need to represented on these teams.

So whatever process we come up for volunteers to apply we should keep in mind 
that the aspects of how these reviews will be conducted may change (size of the 
teams for example). And I hope that the Council will be commenting on this 
before the comment period closes.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer 
Review Team Member
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:03 am
To: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


ICANN has already called for volunteers but asks them to apply through their 
SO/AC. How do they do that? We need a process for that. What value is there in 
the GNSO calling for volunteers until we have a process and some agreement on 
GNSO objectives?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Olga Cavalli
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 9:54 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the Position of 
> Volunteer Review Team Member
> 
> Thanks Chuck.
> Maybe you talked about this yesterday, if this is the case apologies.
> Wy don´t we start by making a call for volunteers in the GNSO and see 
> how many of us are willing to serve as members of the review teams?
> At the same time we can work on the procedures.
> Regards
> Olga
> 
> 
> 2010/1/14 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > Late yesterday, ICANN posted "Call for Applicants for the 
> Position of 
> > Volunteer Review Team Member ". It is a permanent call for 
> volunteers 
> > but the cutoff for the first review (Accountability & 
> Transparency) is 
> > 17 February. The document can be found here:
> > 
> http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicant
> s-11jan10-en.pdf.
> >
> > Of particular interest to this DT:
> >
> > Interested individuals are asked to apply through their Supporting 
> > Organizations or Advisory Committees by sending a short CV (maximum 
> > three
> > pages) and a one-page motivation letter to the following 
> email address:
> > rtcandidatures@xxxxxxxxx.
> >
> > Applicants should possess the following professional and 
> personal skills:
> >
> > Sound knowledge of ICANN and its working practices and 
> culture; Good 
> > knowledge of the subject area of the review; Team spirit, 
> > adaptability; Willingness to learn; Capacity to put aside personal 
> > opinions or preconceptions; Analytical skills; Ability to interpret 
> > quantitative and qualitative evidence; Capacity to draw conclusions 
> > purely based on evidence; Commitment to devote his/her time to the 
> > review process
> >
> > Composition of each review team will aim to achieve:
> >
> > Geographic diversity;
> > Gender balance;
> > Understanding of ICANN's role and the basic Internet ecosystem in 
> > which ICANN operates; Expertise in a discipline related to 
> the review 
> > topic (relevant technical expertise, if required by the 
> scope of the 
> > review); No double membership, meaning that the same individuals 
> > cannot be appointed to serve on more than one review team. This is 
> > strongly suggested in considering the relevant amount of time that 
> > will be required by the review exercises.
> >
> >
> > Because of the 17 Feb deadline for applicants for the A&T 
> review and 
> > the need for applicants to apply through their SO or AC, 
> the GNSO will 
> > need to develop and approve a process to accommodate this 
> as soon as 
> > possible but certainly as close to the beginning of 
> February as possible.
> >
> > Note that items 2 & 3 above provide a good start on qualifications.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>