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

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

I think you are right Caroline, but I believe they will still have to be 
endorsed by an SO or AC.  I really think that Staff made a mistake by putting 
out the request for volunteers before the SOs and ACs had processes in place. I 
understand the time constraints but I think they could still have been met by 
delaying their request a little; and maybe that can still happen with an 
extension of their deadline. 
 
Chuck

________________________________

        From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 9:17 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Review Team Nominee Selection Process
        
        
        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
                ***********************************************************