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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Olga,

On Feb 1, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Olga Cavalli wrote:

> 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.

Thanks for this.  There is no question about a call for volunteers, the board 
has already issued one.  Avri was suggesting the next steps once those names 
come in.   At both the SG selection and house election levels, applicants who 
happen to be NCAs, or anyone else who might not fit a particular box perfectly, 
would be considered alongside the rest.  I would assume any such folks would be 
given fair consideration; the number of this kind would be small and in her 
formula we're talking about up to 12 total in the first cut.  Do you see a 
practical alternative?   

In any event given diversity objectives and the need to give the selectors 
options, does having the top 4 (2 from each house) be nominees sounds about 
right, or should it be 4 + 1 (to be defined) or...?  Needless to say, it would 
be helpful to know how many will actually be selected; we asked for 2 to 3 per 
RT, and the answer there impacts our formula choice....

Best,

Bill


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