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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

On Feb 1, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>  
> I think Avri's proposal is a good start but I would add the following 
> thoughts:
> If we focus on SGs, that may exclude the NCAs, depending on how it is done; I 
> think it would be good if we include the NCAs. If we focused on houses, it 
> still would leave out the nonvoting NCA and would require houses to have 
> procedures, which may be more difficult, so I don't lean in that direction.  
> We could ask for volunteers to submit their names and qualifications to an SG 
> of their choosing for endorsement by that SG; this could be open to anyone 
> including NCAs or candidates they might recommend.
Yes we have to figure out a way to deal with people who don't automatically fit 
into any of the four boxes.  In Avri's proposal, with each SG able to propose 
up to three, NCAs or any other difficult to classify candidates could be 
brought into the mix that way if the numbers aren't large, the competition for 
slots is not too keen, and the evaluation is fair.  But one can also imagine 
other scenarios.

Alternatively, maybe we could do three from each SG from which two are selected 
by each house, plus one additional slot reserved by each house for any not 
easily classified cases, including NCAs.  However, one can imagine that someone 
could object to any scheme in which a special category is created for a rather 
small group of people who are thus given a higher chance of being nominated 
than an SG member....

Another option, which I believe Olga raised early on, would be to eschew trying 
to erect elaborate machinery for this first RT process and just do an open 
application process.  The council or a nomcom thereof would then pick say six 
names to forward, with at least one from each SG (unless there's no 
applicants), taking into account skill sets, geographic and gender balance, 
etc.  My first reaction to the idea wasn't positive because I figured SGs might 
want to more organizationally involved in the selections, plus we'll eventually 
need to define a standard practice anyway.  But now I'm wondering if it might 
not be better for the first time given that a) ICANN announced an applicant due 
date of 17 Feb, Janis and Peter are supposed to select RT members on 20 Feb, 
leaving no time for us to undertake elaborate bureaucratic procedures, and b) 
there may not be a huge number of people banging down the door looking to be 
the Guinea pigs on the first RT, in which case having each organizational level 
undertake a set of steps to select and pass along names to the next would be 
unnecessary.  All things considered, following the shortest distance between 
two points might be sufficient this time.

Thoughts?

Bill