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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

My personal feeling on this is that they should delay any selection
until AFTER Nairobi. There is a lot to prepare for that, and several
initiatives ongoing. I understand the desire to get the reviews moving
forward, but the community should have an opportunity to discuss F2F
before finalizing the proposal. Nairobi isn't the ideal meeting for
that, but it's what we have.

After Nairobi, a final proposal can be posted with the goal of the first
RT meeting in Brussels. This seems like a much more realistic timeline
to me.


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO
endorsement of AoC Review Team Volunteers
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, February 04, 2010 8:43 am
To: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

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>
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:
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.   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   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.   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




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