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

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

FYI
 
An extension is okay.  Does anyone object to me sharing the draft
endorsement process with the ccNSO with the qualification that the DT
has not yet discussed it.
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: Marco Lorenzoni [mailto:marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:44 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Marika Konings
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement
of AoC Review Team Volunteers
Importance: High



Chuck, both Peter and Janis agree on a one-week extension of the
deadline, no problem.

I will announce it on Mon, just yesterday we published a reminder of the
deadline a few hours before your exchange of email and would not like to
create confusion.

Peter suggests also to share your draft endorsement process with ccNSO,
they might be interested to work on the same line; do you have any
objection / do you have a consolidated version to circulate?

Thanks

Marco

 

Marco Lorenzoni

---------------------

ICANN

Director, Organizational Review

marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx

Phone: +32.2.234 78 69

Mobile: +32.475.72 47 47

Fax: +32 2 234 7848

Skype: marco_lorenzoni

---------------------

6, Rond Point Schuman
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium

 

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, 03 February, 2010 18:10
To: Marco Lorenzoni
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement
of AoC Review Team Volunteers

 

Thanks Marco.  Much appreciated.

 

Chuck

         

________________________________

        From: Marco Lorenzoni [mailto:marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:58 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Subject: FW: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO
endorsement of AoC Review Team Volunteers

        Chuck, I saw this and just asked Peter and Janis if they are
positive on this possibility. 

        If I receive something even before your formal request I let you
know.

        Thanks

        Marco

         

        Marco Lorenzoni

        ---------------------

        ICANN

        Director, Organizational Review

        marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx

        Phone: +32.2.234 78 69

        Mobile: +32.475.72 47 47

        Fax: +32 2 234 7848

        Skype: marco_lorenzoni

        ---------------------

        6, Rond Point Schuman
        B-1040 Brussels, Belgium

         

        
        ------ Forwarded Message
        From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
        Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 07:50:54 -0800
        To: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        Cc: "gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <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
        ***********************************************************

        
        
        ------ End of Forwarded Message