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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find below some feedback to your questions from Marco Lorenzoni.

With best regards,

Marika


1)     We did not publish the call beyond our website, so as to leave free 
SO/ACs to do their outreach

2)     We published the call immediately because of very tight time 
constraints; unfortunately there is no way to extend the deadline for 
applications as the two Selectors will select candidates the 20th February

3)     When receiving candidatures making reference to a supporting SO/AC, we 
check with that SO/AC if this is true

4)     When receiving candidatures not making reference to a supporting SO/AC, 
we ask applicant to disclose the identity of his/her SO/AC, then we check with 
that SO/AC

Thanks !!
Marco


Marco Lorenzoni
---------------------
ICANN
Director, Organizational Review
marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx

On 01/02/10 16:34, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Does anyone know (or can we find out) if ICANN has publicized the call for 
volunteers beyond the website and newsletter?  May affect  outreach.

Will be offline (as far as ICANN mailing lists) until this evening. Will catch 
up then.



________________________________
From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx  [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes,  Chuck
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 10:28 AM
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 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
***********************************************************