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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Personally, I believe we are over-thinking this. The suggestion to
submit their names and qualifications to the SG of their choosing for
endorsement by that SG is good one, simple and understandable.

BTW, I personally think that if a current Councilor wants to be
considered for a RT they should agree to step down from the Council if
selected. The time committment to the RT is important and should take
priority. In addition, I cannot support the idea that a single
individual should be blessed with the privilege of serving both on the
Council and a RT.


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Review Team Nominee Selection Process
From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, February 02, 2010 9:56 am
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

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