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

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

If this group thinks that is a good idea, we should quickly propose it to the 
Council.
 
Chuck

________________________________

        From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 10:31 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Review Team Nominee Selection Process
        
        
        I think an extension would be very helpful in this case. Is it worth 
sounding out that possibility?
         
        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: 01 February 2010 15:28
        To: Caroline Greer; William Drake; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Review Team Nominee Selection Process
         
        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 r 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
                        
***********************************************************