RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Group call?

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

Bill,
 
If no one else volunteers to help with the drafting and coordiation, I
will.
 
Please see a few comments inserted below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
        Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 5:13 PM
        To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Group call?
        
        
        On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


                I think it would be very helpful considering our very
short time frame, assuming Bill can do it.  We need to finalize a
proposal for the Council by Wednesday.
                 
                Glen - Would you or Gisella please do a Doodle for this?
                 
                Chuck



        Hi, 

        I'm very sorry, but as this has moved more slowly than expected
I'm afraid my schedule's now going to be a problem at this end.  I have
must-do meetings at the UN all day Sunday-Tuesday, except for a couple
hours Monday afternoon.  If Doodle reveals that a call Monday between
15:00-18:00 CET works for others then I could join, but the only time
I'm going to have to contribute to any focused writing of text would be
tomorrow Saturday and then Wednesday.  Re: Saturday I'm not clear what I
could write at this point as a) we are awaiting clarification of the
timeline,[Gomes, Chuck]  I think we can assume that the one week
extension will be granted.  Marco said, "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."
which may affect the advisability of different formulas for both
qualifications and the procedures for soliciting/processing
applications, and b) we've not had a lot of discussion on these points
yielding a clear consensus.  Re: Wednesday, being six hours ahead of EST
helps somewhat, but as any text will need to be batted back and forth
and agreed, waiting until then for anything more than last edits seems
problematic.

        That being the case, in the key Sunday-Tuesday period someone
else may have to coordinate the aggregation of inputs and tweaking of
consensus text.  Assuming the wifi works in the meeting rooms I can turn
off my headphones sometimes and try to help, but that's about it.  Is
anyone willing and able to step in then?

        So how far down field can we push the ball tomorrow?  Re:
qualifications, Chuck and Kristina have suggested some possible
additional qualifications to those set forth in the call for
applications.  I would note that if ICANN announces on Monday that
applicants have another week, i.e. due the 24th instead of the 17th, and
we adopt a bunch of GNSO-specific requirements on the 18th, it will be
pretty important to ensure that everyone who may be working on an app
gets fully apprised quickly, as they won't have much time.[Gomes, Chuck]
That is why I suggested in the process I proposed to make the proposed
process known as soon as we send it to the Council on 10 Feb.  To be
honest, I can imagine problem scenarios and wonder about the efficacy of
setting additional requirements for this first, somewhat experimental RT
process.  But if everyone else feels strongly that we need these,
ok.[Gomes, Chuck]  What do we think GNSO endorsement should mean.  One
alternative, as you suggest here, is that the GNSO endorsement simply
means that we believe that the candidate satisfies the qualifications
described by Staff in the proposed plan.  I personally think that GNSO
endorsement should mean more than that but we need to discuss that. 

        Re: process, Chuck has proposed a framework in his 2 Feb
message, inter alia with the council forming a rating team of one
Councilor from each SG plus one NCA, top ranked applicants then needing
a simple majority vote of each house, and the council ultimately
endorsing up to six.  We'd need to flesh this out a bit.  And Rafik has
raised concerns about Chuck's suggestion re: geographical diversity, I
raised a question as to whether the each applicant should have to get a
majority of each house, and Caroline and Tim suggested we we should let
each SG do their own internal process.  Here too I'm not clear from the
responses what the level of consensus is, but it's the end of a long day
and I'm groggy and probably missing something.[Gomes, Chuck]  I also am
not clear what level of consensu there is and hopefully we can clarify
that more in the next couple days on the list and in a call on Monday. 

        Anyway, if we could have more discussion around these two bits
and identify points of consensus I can try to do something tomorrow, or
conspire if someone wants to collaborate.

        Best,

        Bill