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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Excellent suggestions Kristina.  With the possible exception of item 6,
I think all of the items would be good to ask and I agree that having a
clear list of questions and in a standardized order would greatly simply
our review.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
        Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:58 AM
        To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] RT Applicant Qualifications
        
        
        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