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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I wonder if we have strong arguments to justify more GNSO members to the Rt 
than other SOs/Acs, at least we have to prepare those arguments. It may be 
justifiable in case of the Whois RT and to a certain extent in case of the A&T 
RT.
Following the AoC under 9.3.1 (Whois) it is said "...ICANN will organize a 
review of WHOIS policy and....".
Under AoC 9.1 (A&T) you find five commitments to be reviewed, one of them is 
"...(e) assessing the policy development process...".
Both areas are GNSO "domains" and would require comprehensive knowledge as 
input for the relevant RTs.

With respect to the nomination process of volunteers I'm fully in line with 
Olga's clarification. We should not impose any barriers for GNSO members to 
volunteer. But at the end we should nominate as many candidates as the seats 
assigned to the SO in the RT. This means that we have to commit ourselves to a 
selection method (maybe similar to the election process under the council rules 
of procedure). I think it allows us a more powerful position as compared to 
providing a pool of names and leave the selection up to the RT selectors.
One question with regards to the At Large representatives came to my mind, and 
I really hope I'm not misunderstood because it's just a question about fairness 
of the selection process. ALAC is allocated 1 seat in the RTs. Why should At 
Large be given an additional chance through their representation at the GNSO 
table? The only answer to that question for me is: yes, we can do this if all 
of us are convinced that this person is capable to represent the whole GNSO 
(which btw should apply for any volunteer). I think we should discuss this in 
an open manner.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Olga 
Cavalli
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Januar 2010 00:50
An: Tim Ruiz
Cc: Gomes,Chuck; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; krosette@xxxxxxx; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer 
Review Team Member

Hi,
Just to clarify there is one NCA part of each house, the other NCA is
independent, has not vote and is not in any house.
None NCA is member of a stakeholder group.
Regards
Olga

2010/1/14 Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> A SG may select someone currently on the Council, but wouldn't it make
> sense that if a Councilor is selected for one of the review teams that
> they agree to step down from the Council? I'm not convinced that an
> individual will be able to give both the Council and the review team
> enough time, or that it wouldn't create some sort of conflict. Something
> to consider.
>
> Also, I don't agree with Olga's conclusion regarding the NCAs. I do
> think that each House should have a hand in selecting individuals it
> would like to recommend, put forward, whatever. A NCA may be considered,
> and there are NCAs in each House that participate, vote, etc. The NCAs
> are selected by the NomCom but that does not mean they are not part of
> stakeholder groups. We have to think in broader terms for this
> selection, not just at Council level.
>
>
> 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 2:25 pm
> To: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>, <krosette@xxxxxxx>, <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>