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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sure Olga.  Let me just use myself as an example.  I believe that the time 
commitment required to be GNSO Council Chair along with my other 
responsibilities would not all me sufficient time to serve on a review team 
this year.  So I would disqualify myself based on the first criterion.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 2:38 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the 
> Position of Volunteer ReviewTeam Member
> 
> 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-applican
> >> > >> >> t
> >> > >> >> 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
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>