RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Review Team Nominee Selection Process

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for kicking this off Bill.
 
We have not really discussed this yet within the Registries Stakeholder Group, 
although we have a call on Wednesday after which I hope to be able to forward 
some more definitive views.
 
As to actual individual candidate qualifications, Chuck had started this 
conversation recently with the following thoughts which I think are a good 
baseline:
 
1. Availability and willingness to commit the time (Question for our group: do 
we immediately eliminate candidates who have other significant leadership 
responsibilities in the community? This could include GNSO leaders and perhaps 
NomCom reps).
2. The criteria listed in the current Call for Applicants.
3. Demonstrated trustworthiness to function neutrally and objectively.
 
I am of the opinion that we should let each SG come up with their own internal 
process to present candidates (using the candidate qualifications as a guide) 
and I am ok with Avri's suggestion that 3 from each SG be put forward. If we do 
not limit those candidates to the strict confines of each SG and clearly state 
as much - ie, a SG could nominate someone from outside of their group - we may 
not need to worry about candidates who do not fit neatly into one category? I 
am trying to think of an example of someone who would not be represented 
somewhere however. It is also likely that some third parties will send in their 
applications directly to ICANN, in which case they will have an opportunity to 
be considered anyway by the Selectors.
 
We will need some sort of voting mechanism for the Council and I don't have any 
particular objections to Avri's suggestion at this time although I want to 
think about it some more. We would also need visibility of the applications 
relating to each candidate beforehand in order to evaluate and vote. 
Alternatively, a representative from each SG could take it upon themselves to 
present an overview of each candidate to the Council. 
 
Caroline.
 
 
From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: 01 February 2010 10:38
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Review Team Nominee Selection Process
 
Hello,
 
I don't know about anyone else here, but I asked NCSG members for input a few 
days ago and have received none.  Nor have I seen any input from the Council 
list.  So I guess we should just get started brainstorming here....
 
We need to define a fair methodology for taking in, evaluating, and deciding 
among applications, e.g. 
 
1.  What individual qualifications are required, and how to fairly assess 
council vs non-council candidates
2.  What kind of distribution we want to present to the Selectors (we'd talked 
about one from each SG, but there are interested parties who don't necessarily 
fit into any one SG, and other complexities)
3.  Who will select nominees from the candidate pool using what method
4.  etc
 
Below a suggestion from Avri to maybe help start the conversation.
 
Bill
 
Begin forwarded message:



From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: January 29, 2010 8:38:06 PM GMT+01:00
To: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Fwd: [] Input to the Affirmation Reviews Requirements drafting team by 
COB Monday 1 February 2010
 
my recommendation is something like
 
each SG can put forward up to 3 names 
the names do not need to be SG members but can be
 
and the houses will vote 
     2 votes per council member (1 vote max for a candidate)
(assuming you get 2 seats, number of votes = number of seats)
  
the top 2 from each house will be presented as nominees 
with a request from the CEO/Chair to pick one from house a) and one from house 
b.
 
with the rest ranked as alternates or members of the advisory or whatever.
 
a.
 
 
 
Begin forwarded message:



From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 29 January 2010 12:56:58 EST
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Input to the Affirmation Reviews Requirements drafting team 
by COB Monday 1 February 2010



Dear Councillors,
 
Reminder about an action item that arose out of the Council meeting on Thursday 
28 January 2010 with regard to the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Review. 
Please provide early input to the drafting team, via the Council mailing list, 
on any ideas you have on how GNSO volunteers should be identified as nominees 
for each of the four review teams.
 
Action Item:
 
* The Council agreed that the drafting team, under the leadership of Bill 
Drake, should continue working on how GNSO volunteers should be identified as 
nominees for each of the four review teams.
 
 
* The procedures should be presented to the Council on 10 February, 8 days 
before the Council meeting on 18 February 2010 for approval.
 
 
* Councillors and stakeholder Groups are requested to provide input to the 
drafting team by COB on Monday, 1 February 2010.
 
Thank you.
Kind regards,
 
Glen
 
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/> 
 
 
 
 
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************