RE: [gnso-arr-dt] RT Applicant Qualifications

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

With the caveat that I am posting these for illustrative purposes only,
here's what the IPC asked for from people interested in being considered
for the IRT.   (The list was posted on the Council list.)  To be clear,
I am not suggesting that all of these questions are relevant or
appropriate, but some are and it may be a useful start for coming up
with our own iterations.   It was very helpful to have a clear list so
we could compare responses more easily, which was particularly important
given the crazy time frame we had.  
 
1. The full name and contact information of the nominee (including the
name of her/his employer and title); 

2. The ICANN Geographic Region(s) in which the nominee is a citizen and
is a resident; 

3. Identification of the nominee's knowledge, experience, and expertise
in the fields of trademark, consumer protection, or competition law, and
the interplay of trademarks and the domain name system;

4. Identification of any financial ownership or senior
management/leadership interest of the nominee in registries, registrars
or other entities that are stakeholders or interested parties in ICANN
or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other
arrangement; 

5. State if the nominee would be representing any other party or person
through her/his IRT participation and, if so, identify that party or
person; and 

6. State if the nominee submitted comments during the public comment
process on the first draft of the DAG and, if so, attach a copy of them.


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
        Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:47 AM
        To: William Drake
        Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck
        Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] RT Applicant Qualifications
        
        
        Thanks Bill,
        I agree with:
        "qualifications should be clearly communicated before we start
the GNSO process so that possible volunteers are fully aware of the
criteria that the GNSO will use in making endorsements and can explain
how they satisfy those qualifications"
        
        Regards
        Olga
        
        
        2010/2/2 William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        

                Hi, 

                Maybe it'd help to have separate threads per issue,
rather than having points blended and maybe getting lost.  So here's one
on qualifications, in a sec another on process.


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

                        *       
                                Whatever we do, I believe that the
qualifications should be clearly communicated before we start the GNSO
process so that possible volunteers are fully aware of the criteria that
the GNSO will use in making endorsements and can explain how they
satisfy those qualifications.  I also think it would be a good idea if
specific questions were asked of volunteers that they would be required
to answer in describing their qualifications.  Using a template for
volunteer statements could greatly help us in evaluating the responses
fairly.

                ICANN's call suggest

                        1.      Applicants should possess the following
professional and personal skills:

                                

                                *       Sound knowledge of ICANN and its
working practices and culture; 
                                *       Good knowledge of the subject
area of the review; 
                                *       Team spirit, adaptability; 
                                *       Willingness to learn; 
                                *       Capacity to put aside personal
opinions or preconceptions; 
                                *       Analytical skills; 
                                *       Ability to interpret
quantitative and qualitative evidence; 
                                *       Capacity to draw conclusions
purely based on evidence; 
                                *       Commitment to devote his/her
time to the review process 

                These generic qualifications could be difficult to
assess in a manner everyone considers objective and fair.  I don't look
forward to making judgements on someone's "team spirit," etc.

                Either way, are they sufficient for our purposes, in
which case we just reference them?  

                Alternatively, Chuck, in raising the qualifications
point several times, are you thinking that we'd have additional ones
optimized to the GNSO environment?  Specific to the RT in question?  For
example, for the accountability and transparency RT would we expect
applicants to possess identifiable expertise in council work processes?
That might be something of a barrier to entry for some people who've not
been on the council (who knows, and maybe some who have :-)  For
competition & consumer would we require expertise on VI and related
(which) issues?  Could be daunting...for security and WHOIS I suppose
it's easier...

                Thoughts anyone?

                Bill