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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chuck.
Regards
Olga

2010/1/15 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
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>