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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
In the case that each of the 4 SGs in the GNSO nominate a
representative, then there must be also another representative from
the Noncom Appointees.
Regards
Olga

2010/1/14  <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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>