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

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

Of course quality candidates, male and female from across the globe, exist. But 
my point is that we don't want to find ourselves in a straitjacket if they 
choose not to step forward. The review process is a very onerous task to take 
on and there may be less candidates presenting themselves than we think. 
Therefore, I feel it is best to set diversity guidelines only at the SO level.  
 

Kind regards 


----------------
Caroline Greer
Director of Policy 
dotMobi 


----- Original Message -----
From: olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Caroline Greer
Cc: zahid@xxxxxxxxx <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>; rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx 
<rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>; owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
<owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat Feb 06 13:49:42 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement of AoC 
Review Team Volunteers

There are many highly qualified professionals from different parts of the 
world, men and women, there should be no compromise with the quality of 
candidates if they are selected considering their kowledge, background and 
experience.
Olga


2010/2/6 Caroline Greer <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>


        I am less convinced. I definitely think that best efforts should be 
made to acheive geographic and gender representation but not if that 
compromises the quality of candidates which is paramount.
        
        SOs should be encouraged to think about diversity but ultimately, the 
Selectors make that particular call, no?
        
        Kind regards
        
        ----------------
        Caroline Greer
        Director of Policy
        dotMobi



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
        To: zahid@xxxxxxxxx <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
        Cc: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>; owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
<owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
        Sent: Sat Feb 06 12:55:14 2010
        Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO 
endorsement of AoC Review Team Volunteers
        
        I also agree with Rafik.
        Regards
        Olga
        
        
        
        
        2010/2/6 Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
        
        
                I do think Rafik makes a valid point.
               
               
               
        
               
               
                Sincerely,
               
                Zahid Jamil
                Barrister-at-law
                Jamil & Jamil
                Barristers-at-law
                219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
                Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
                Cell: +923008238230
                Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
                Fax: +92 21 5655026
                www.jamilandjamil.com
               
                Notice / Disclaimer
                This message contains confidential information and its contents 
are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the 
intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
                Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have 
received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents 
above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, 
Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney 
client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification 
of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing 
it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally 
or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and 
consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.
               
               
                Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
        
        ________________________________
        
                From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
                Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:12:05 +0900
                To: Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
                Cc: <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
                Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO 
endorsement of AoC Review Team Volunteers
        
                Hi Chuck,
        
                I don't think that we can compromise in that point as the 
ongoing internationalization of ICANN is critical and I guess that is subject 
to accountability too.
                with a real constraint, we may urge SGs to involve their 
members from less-represented regions. 
                the same case may happen somehow for gender balance too.
        
                Regards
        
                Rafik
        
                2010/2/4 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
               
        
                        Thanks Rafik.  How would you suggest changing the 
process?  The proposed wording is: "No more than two volunteers should come 
from the same geographical region."  The key word is "should"; that was 
intentional because if there are not qualified, volunteers from enough 
geographic regions, what would we do?  The goal would be to not have more that 
two from any one region, but that may not be achievable.
                        
                        Chuck
        
        
        ________________________________
        
                                From: Rafik Dammak 
[mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
                                Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:03 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 Chuck,
        
        
        
                                         "have less than three geographic 
regions represented. ".
                                        
        
        
                                I am uncomfortable with this point because in 
practice some regions wasn't enough represented and this will allow the status 
quo for RT.
        
                                if it is not late, no objection for extension.
        
                                Regards
        
                                rafik