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

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

Regarding the call for volunteers, I see no reason why we cannot have our own 
call for volunteers and our own process in that regard.  The biggest problem is 
the timing because the ICANN deadline for volunteer applications is 17 Feb.  We 
could ask for an extension to faciliate our process.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of William Drake
        Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 8:26 AM
        To: Olga Cavalli
        Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Review Team Nominee Selection Process
        
        
        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 
<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
                        
***********************************************************