RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement of AoC Review Team Volunteers

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

No objections from me. I think an extension is very much needed. 
 
Thanks,
 
Caroline.
 
From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 03 February 2010 15:51
To: William Drake
Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement
of AoC Review Team Volunteers
 
That is exactly what I was thinking Bill.  But I didn't want to make the
request unless I had a sense that the DT members support me doing so.
Does anyone object to me sending a request to the Board/Staff asking for
a "one week extension of time beyond 17 February (i.e., 24 Feb) for
Council endorsement of GNSO volunteers"?  If I hear no objections today,
I will send it.
 
Chuck
         
        
________________________________

        From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:46 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO
endorsement of AoC Review Team Volunteers
        Hi 
         
        Thanks for the detailed suggestions Chuck.  Obviously we need to
know first if they will extend the timeline, as Marco previously
rejected that possibility and said Janis and Peter will be Selectors on
the 20th.  If everyone agrees, as Chair could you fire off the extension
request, and when we know either way we can work through the rest?
         
        Best,
         
        Bill
         
         
         
        On Feb 2, 2010, at 10:53 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
        
        
        
        I appreciate the good discussion going on today and just now
found some time to jump in.  Here are some ideas that may help us move
forward in both the near term and longer term regarding a GNSO
endorsement process.
         
        I think it would be helpful if we work on two separate
endorsement processes: 1) one for the first review team that has a very
short window; 2) one for the long term that could be applied for
endorsement of volunteers for future RTs.  I understand that the "Call
for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer Review Team Member"
(http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13jan10-en.htm)
covers all four reviews but the only deadline set is for the first
review (Accountability and Transparency), 17 February.  To work within
this very short timeframe, I think it will be impossible to develop a
quality long-term process and do it using a bottom-up approach that
involves the broader GNSO community.  That is why I think we should
first narrow our focus on a one-time process to address the immediate
need and then spend more time in the next month or two on developing a
better process that we can more thoroughly vet.  Using the various ideas
that members of our DT proposed on this list and taking into
consideration the very tight time constraints, I propose the following
for the one-time process:
        1.      ASAP: 1) send a request to the Board/Staff for a one
week extension of time beyond 17 February (i.e., 24 Feb) for Council
endorsement of GNSO volunteers; 2) send a request to Staff requesting
that applications received from volunteers for the Accountability and
Transparency RT be forwarded to the GNSO Secretariat as soon as possible
after receipt for distribution to the Council list and other GNSO
organization lists; 3) notify GNSO community members that the GNSO
endorsement process is under development and encourage volunteers from
the GNSO to submit applications via the ICANN process; 4) request that
SGs, Constituencies and other GNSO groups encourage volunteers from
their communities to submit applications via the ICANN process. 
        2.      10 Feb: 1) finalize a draft one-time process for the
first Accountability and Transparency RT and distribute to the Council
with a motion for Council approval; 2) publicly post and distribute
draft process GNSO groups; 3) send draft process to ICANN Staff and
request that it be sent as soon as possible to all GNSO volunteers with
a request that they complete the GNSO request for information and send
it to the GNSO Secretariat by 17 Feb or as soon thereafter as possible
but not later than 22 Feb 
        3.      18 Feb: 1) Council approval of the one-time process; 2)
Council review & discussion of nominees identified to date; 3) form an
evaluation team made up of one Councilor from each SG plus one NCA to
rate the responses and report to the Council list not later than 23 Feb;
request that the AoC Review DT continue its work to develop a
longer-term process for Council consideration in March or April. 
        4.      24 Feb: Hold a brief Council teleconference call to
review volunteers and finalize the list of volunteers endorsed by the
GNSO for the 2010 Accountability and Transparency RT.
        Proposed Details for GNSO Endorsements
         
        The GNSO Council will endorse up to six volunteers for the 2010
AoC Accountability and Transparency RT as follows:
        *       Endorsement requires a simple majority vote of each
house. 
        *       Assuming their are volunteers who receive the necessary
Council votes, at least one volunteer should be endorsed from each
house. 
        *       No more than two volunteers should come from the same
geographical region. 
        *       Volunteers must not all be of the same gender and at
least 1/3 of each gender should be represented if possible. 
        *       In cases where more than six total or more than one from
a SG receive at least a simple majority from each house, ties will be
broken as follows, in the order presented: 1) geographical and/or gender
diversity; 2) the total votes received; 3) the Council non-voting NCA
will be asked to break the tie.  (We should check with Andrei to make he
is okay with this.)
        Notes: a) Endorsement is not automatic just because there are
less than six volunteers or because a volunteer is from a SG for which
there is no other volunteer or for geographical or gender reasons; b)
having appropriate skill and knowledge sets is the most important
qualification and hopefully the requirement for at least a simple
majority of each house will facilitate that goal; c) it is possible to
endorse less than six volunteers, to endorse no one from a SG, to not
endorse volunteers from both genders and/or have less than three
geographic regions represented.  .
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
        ***********************************************************
        William J. Drake
        Senior Associate
        Centre for International Governance
        Graduate Institute of International and
         Development Studies
        Geneva, Switzerland
        william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
        ***********************************************************