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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wolf,
there is one NCA who is not part of any house.
Regards
Olga

2010/1/14  <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> 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
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>