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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,
2 NCA are part of the noncontracted and contractded houses (one in
each house), the other is independent.
We are not part of stakeholder groups.
If selection process is done among the stakeholder groups and they are
nominating one rep each, then it is fair to consider that NCAs should
have their own.
Regards
Olga

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