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

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

Olga,

Are you suggesting that the GNSO submit 5 nominees?  Note that the SGs could 
nominate a NCA or someone not even part of the Council.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 2:38 PM
> To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: krosette@xxxxxxx; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the 
> Position of Volunteer Review Team Member
> 
> 
> 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>