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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
Giving the short time we have, I agree with:

"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"

I suggest we make a call for volunteers and select them considering the
critera already established by ICANN and other that fit GNSO interests and
needs.

Regards
Olga

2010/2/2 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
>
>
>