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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

I think that the list should be restricted and not so long, I
am wondering about time limitation for assessing fairly and in details all
these points with applicants. maybe we need also weight questions by
dividing in few sets according to level of importance.
I can understand those requirements but I don't see how we can check them
with fair and objectivity. so for example point 1, 3 and 4 mentioned below
can be verified easily.
and questions listed by Kristina like 1/ and 2/ don't need to
be weighted except the case of region representation.

Regards

Rafik


2010/2/3 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  I think it would be good to have at least two categories of
> qualifications: 1) those identified in the call for volunteers as listed
> below; 2) qualifications to be used by the GNSO for endorsement purposes.
> Regarding the latter, here are my suggestions, the first two of which I
> suggested some time ago:
>
> 1. Availability and willingness to commit the time (This would eliminate
> candidates who have other significant GNSO leadership responsibilities like
> myself for the first review.)
>
> 2. Demonstrated trustworthiness to function neutrally and objectively
>
> 3. Basic knowledge of the GNSO community and its various stakeholders
>
> 4. Basic understanding of the domain name industry (i.e., the
> registry/registrar model, diversity of domain name registrants and users,
> etc.)
>
> For each of the above and for the criteria listed below, we should
> discourage applicants from simply giving general affirmative answers and
> rather ask them to provide specific data points.  For item 1 above, we may
> want to request information like the following: a)  List the primary demands
> on your time (e.g., full-time job, part-time job, volunteer tasks,
> leadership positions, etc.); b) How much time on average do you estimate you
> could commit to this task per week?  For item 2 above and the fifth bullet
> below, we could ask applicants to cite specific real life examples where
> they demonstrated the qualities.  For qualifications that involve knowledge
> and understand like items 3 & 4 above and several of the bulleted items
> below, we could ask them to explain how they obtained the knowledge and
> understanding.
>
> Chuck
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:23 AM
> *To:* gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Subject:* RT Applicant Qualifications
>
> 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
>
>