RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Review Team Nominee Selection Process
Thanks Marika.
I repeat my concern that this process is totally backwards. Are we expected to
endorse candidates before the candidate volunteer deadline (17 Feb)? I think
that would be impossible. As it looks now, I think the best we can do is
approve a plan to endorse candidates on 18 Feb. If they are simply looking for
the GNSO to confirm that a volunteer is from the GNSO, that would be rediculous.
What does "endorse" mean?
When will the SOs and ACs be contacted regarding volunteers?
Chuck
________________________________
From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 10:55 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina; Gomes, Chuck; Caroline Greer; William Drake;
gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Marco Lorenzoni
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Review Team Nominee Selection Process
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
***********************************************************
|