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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

We went to a great deal of trouble to arrive at the current two House
structure. There are also several diverse stakeholder groups and
constituencies in the GNSO. The AoC draft indicates a selectee from the
GNSO should be on each team. Given the diversity of the GNSO it makes
sense to me to ask that there be a minimum of two selectees from the
GNSO. Whether we want to look at these as House selections, SG
selections, or whatever, one on each review team is not enough.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the Position of
Volunteer Review Team Member
From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, January 14, 2010 2:57 pm
To: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <krosette@xxxxxxx>, <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


For sure, Olga, the NCAs should be treated the same fair way as the
other potential GNSO applicants. So let's think about nominations on
houses' level:
- each house may nominate 1 volunteer for each RT (including ranking
according to their interests)
- the selectors should select from this pool that each house covers 2
RTs

Fair? Comments?


Regards
Wolf-Ulrich



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2010 21:25
An: Olga Cavalli
Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; krosette@xxxxxxx; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx;
gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the Position of
Volunteer Review Team Member

Thanks for clarifying Olga.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:10 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; krosette@xxxxxxx; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
> gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the 
> Position of Volunteer Review Team Member
> 
> 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
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>