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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Agree.  We have a good rationale for putting up 2 (if we go by House) or 4 (if 
we go by SG), but not for an unlimited number. Seems me to that submitting more 
than 4 increases the likelihood that PDT and JK will punt selection back to 
Council.  

K
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 11:34 AM
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer 
ReviewTeam Member


I'd prefer we put some limit on it if we can. I've already heard from half a 
dozen individuals who want on this first AoC team. The Council could end up 
with dozens of candidates to vet.


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer 
ReviewTeam Member
From: "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, January 15, 2010 10:11 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx

What if any constituency or SG is able to put forward one or multiple 
volunteers and the Council simply vets them for conformity with the criteria 
without any restriction on number of candidates that may be put forward by the 
GNSO after such vetting?






Sincerely,

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com


*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink 
***

-----Original Message-----
From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:09:12
To: <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer 
Review Team Member


I agree with Kristina. And if one of the SGs or Constituencies want to
put forward one of the NCAs that's fine. Or I personally would be okay
if they put forward someone not necessarily a formal member of any GNSO
body if they want. But I think whoever is put forward by the GNSO should
not only meet the AoC stated qualifications but should be familiar with
the GNSO process as well.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the Position of
Volunteer Review Team Member
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, January 15, 2010 9:06 am
To: <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


I disagree on both counts.

First, it is my understanding that NCAs are not GNSO members. That's why
they are appointed by the NomCom in the first instance.

Second, if we go with a House selection, we have only 2 candidates. I
believe the GNSO's interests are best served by presenting a wider
number of candidates, and going by SG facilitates that goal. As to
Bill's point about exclusion, I understand the concern. However, it is
my understanding that many of the not yet-constituency participants are
actually already members of an SG, constituency, or ALAC (dotBerlin -
potential City TLD constituency is a BC member). Are the members of the
Consumer and CyberSafety constituencies-in-formation NCUC members or
NCSG members? I think the other potential constituencies may be
"accounted for".



-----Original Message-----
From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:58 PM
To: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Rosette, Kristina; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the Position of
Volunteer Review Team Member

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
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>