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

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

I just wondered if some people would randomly apply in response to the call 
from ICANN since there was an email address provided, even though that it not 
the process that ought to be followed.
 
Caroline.
 
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 01 February 2010 13:50
To: Caroline Greer; William Drake; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Review Team Nominee Selection Process
 
I appreciated the fact that the discussion on this has started.
 
Caroline, I am not sure that the following statement is true: "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."  If volunteers have to be endorsed by SOs and ACs, the 
Selectors may not be able to consider them except possibly as an expert.
 
Chuck
         
        
________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Caroline Greer
        Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 7:20 AM
        To: William Drake; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Review Team Nominee Selection Process
        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
        ***********************************************************