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

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

Bill,
 
Regarding the extension, note that Marco said "I will announce it on
Mon".  Not sure what he will announce, but I assume that one item will
be the delay in the Selectors' decisions.
 
I told Marco that I didn't want to share the draft process without
concurrence of the DT and also said that we hadn't discussed the draft
yet.  The reason he saw the draft process is because he is monitoring
the DT list.
 
We need to get something in front of the SGs as soon as possible.  I
think it would be helpful if we could reach enough agreement among
ourselves on the draft process this week or very early next week so that
we could then seek feedback from our SGs.  I hope that can happen on
this list.  
 
If others on the DT would rather share the draft process with our SGs
now, I am okay with that.  Which approach to DT members favor?
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 9:17 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
        Importance: High
        
        
        Hi Chuck 

        That's good news on the extension, thanks.  So would the dates
be as shown in your proposal, and Janis and Peter will push back their
selection appointment?

        Re: your Proposed Details for GNSO Endorsements, it might be
better to hold off on sharing that with anyone, no?  We've not had any
discussion on it yet.  Some bits may need a little fleshing out, I see
Rafik has some concerns, others may too.  In this connection, do I
understand your language as meaning that any nominee would need a simple
majority of both houses?  If so, some folks might prefer more autonomy
for the houses or even the SGs in ensuring that at least one name is
their top preference.  I know I'd want to discuss this with NCSGers...

        Bill


        On Feb 4, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


                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
<x-msg://117/cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
                        Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 07:50:54 -0800
                        To: William Drake
<william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<x-msg://117/william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
                        Cc: "gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
<x-msg://117/gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx> " <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
<x-msg://117/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
<x-msg://117/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
<x-msg://117/william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
                        www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
        
***********************************************************

                        
                        
                        ------ End of Forwarded Message


        ***********************************************************
        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
        ***********************************************************