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

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

agree

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer
        Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:53 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; 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
        
        
        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
        
***********************************************************