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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck, whatever are you talking about?  The volunteer deadline is 17 Feb, the 
Selectors will pick on 20 Feb.  So we have a whole day for the SGs to review 
the applicants and decide which to propose to the houses, for the houses to 
horse trade and agree which to propose to the council, and for the council to 
finalize the nominees and forward for the Selectors' careful review on the 
19th/20th!

Makes total sense.

Bill


On Feb 1, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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
> ***********************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

***********************************************************
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
***********************************************************