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

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

I think Wolf is correct that we should anticipate that other groups will want 
equity in increased numbers if the GNSO numbers increase and that we should 
provide justification for any requests we make in that regard.  Here are a 
couple possible reasons we could give, in no particular order: 1) GNSO 
registrants pay fees that fund well over 90% of ICANN's activities; 2) because 
a large majority of ICANN policy development work relates to GNSO issues, the 
results of the AoC reviews potentially could have greater impact on the GNSO 
community than other ICANN communities.  I personally think that other possible 
justifications such as our bicameral structure and our diversity would be less 
effective because others could reframe the arguments from their perspective as 
well.  For example: 1) if we argue that our bicameral structure warrants at 
least two GNSO members per RT team, then the ccNSO could argue that they should 
have one for each of the five regions and the ALAC could argue that they need 
one from each their regions; 2) if we argue that we are more diverse, then the 
ccNSO could argue that they cover all countries and regions of the world as 
could the ALAC.

I would qualify the following statement by Wolf: "We should not impose any 
barriers for GNSO members to volunteer." Whether we call them barriers or not, 
we should establish what we believe are the best qualifications for volunteers 
to maximize the chances of success for the reviews themselves and the chances 
of the GNSO RT members neutrally providing expertise regarding all GNSO 
stakeholders.  I think that any qualifications we define should be communicated 
before volunteers are solicited so that potential volunteers can self-evaluate 
their decisions. Also, predefining qualifications provides a basis for Council 
endorsements after volunteers are solicited, hopefully reducing the possible 
perception that the criteria were designed to eliminate particular individuals.

Finally, and I think this is in agreement with Wolf, I believe that there 
should be very strong support for every volunteer we put forward so that 
whichever ones the selectors choose, we would be confident that the ICANN 
community as a whole and the GNSO community as a whole would be well served.  
Put more directly, I recommend that any volunteers we endorse should have at 
least a supermajority support of both houses. I don't know if this is 
achievable, but it would be something to strive for.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 7:40 AM
> To: olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; krosette@xxxxxxx; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Call for Applicants for the 
> Position of Volunteer Review Team Member
> 
> 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
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>