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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
why:

"1. Availability and willingness to commit the time"

would be a condition to

"eliminate candidates who have other significant GNSO leadership
responsibilities"

Could you please clarify?

Regards
Olga





Availabilityand willingness to commit time depends on each candidate´s
own management of time and work, with or without significant GNSO
leadership responsibilities.




2010/1/15 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Here is my first stab at identifying some criteria for the RT members:
>
> 1. Availability and willingness to commit the time (This would eliminate 
> candidates who have other significant GNSO leadership responsibilities like 
> myself for the first review.)
>
> 2. The criteria listed in the current Call for Applicants
>
> 3. Demonstrated trustworthiness to function neutrally and objectively.
>
> Chuck
>
>> -----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
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>