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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
there was an exchange of ideas about this a while ago and I have already
sent some comments.
In any case, I suggest that GNSO could start with a call for volunteers, to
have a sense of how many candidates are willing to participate in these
review teams.
On the other hand, as I have mentioned before, if only SG propose names, as
suggested by Avri, that would put aside the Noncom appointees and this is
not fair.
Regards
Olga




2010/2/1 William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> 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
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>