RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement of AoC Review Team Volunteers
- To: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement of AoC Review Team Volunteers
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 07:51:31 -0500
Good morning Bill (afternoon for you now), Regarding notifying
candidates of the GNSO endorsement process and qualifications:
I do not see any way that the Council can approve an endorsement
process before 18 Feb. A small group of us are having enough difficulty
coming to agreement. Before Councilors could vote, they would need to
vet it with their groups. The plan I proposed allows a week for vetting.
If the 17 Feb deadline remains for volunteers to apply, that
means that it is impossible to communicate the approved process and
qualifications before the end of the application period.
That is why I suggested that we publicly post and distribute our
final draft proposal to the Council on 10 Feb. That is far from ideal,
I know. But if we are able to reach strong consensus among ourselves,
then hopefully the Council will approve our proposal with minimal
changes and the information posted will be close to the approved
version. Obviously, we would need to make clear that the posted process
is a draft that could change after Council review and approval. But
under the very difficult time constraints we were given, that seems like
the best we could do.
In essence, we have been put into a situation where it is close
to impossible to follow our established bottom-up procedures in a
reasonable way, but I think it is best for us to at least try to
cooperate on the first review only.
Regarding the ccNSO and the ACs, I have no idea what they are doing.
I will distribute what I hope will be a clearer description of what I
think is on the table in the next hour or two. Maybe that will help us
focus on the decisions we need to make in the next few days.
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 3:42 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Rafik Dammak; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO
endorsement of AoC Review Team Volunteers
On Feb 7, 2010, at 3:08 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
BTW, my comment c) was not intended to be part of the
plan. I was simply trying to be transparent about the fact that the
proposal as worded could result in that outcome. I will create a clear
version of the proposal as submitted and propose a change to deal with
Sorry, to me a number of the points in the Notes don't appear to
necessarily follow from the Proposed Details but rather are additional,
so I didn't pick up on their status. Either way though we get to the
same place since people are going to ask what the plan would mean for
distribution and diversity of nominees.
On Feb 7, 2010, at 2:54 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
ICANN's call for volunteers has already gone out. I do
not believe that time will allow for a GNSO call for volunteers so it is
important for all of us to spread the word and encourage volunteers from
various geographical regions and of different gender.
If we adopt on the 18th additional qualifications requirements
and procedures for selecting GNSO candidates, we'd have to notify the
community so applicants know what to do & expect, no? Or are you
suggesting we give up on the former and only define and post the latter?
Or am I missing the point and in need of more coffee?
BTW does anyone know how the other SO/ACs are approaching all
this? I assume there are parallel discussions going on out there...