RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Summary of where we are

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

Thanks for the feedback Caroline.  I know there is just a little time
before our call today, but anything you can do to come up with some
language as to how we could draw that out further, it would really be
helpful.
 
Chuck

________________________________

        From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 7:32 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Summary of where we are
        
        
        Thanks Chuck, this is very helpful. It's a tight timeline but, I
think, achievable.
         
        Just one comment on the qualifications - several people have
suggested that those with existing, significant ICANN leadership
positions (eg GNSO, NomCom) ought not to be considered as a candidate.
We should discuss today how our group feels about this proposal and if
there is consensus, we should draw that out a little more in the
document, beyond a general statement around 'availability and
willingness to commit the time'. I think it's a very sensible
limitation.
         
        Caroline.
         
        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: 07 February 2010 15:07
        To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Summary of where we are
        Importance: High
         
        The attached MS Word document contains the following:
        1.      AoC DT Action Plan for Development of GNSO Endorsement
of RT Volunteers 
        2.      Proposed One-Time Process for GNSO Endorsement of AoC
Accountability & Transparency Review Team Volunteers 
        3.      Proposed Qualifications 
        Items 1 & 2 are for the most part the same as what I previously
sent to the list as a suggested plan forward with a few updates, some
additions and comments and restructuring to make it easier to reference
and discuss.  In item 3 I listed the ICANN AoC qualifications and added
the four GNSO qualifications I suggested along with Kristina's
suggestions for data needed.
         
        My hope is that this will facilitate our discussion on the list
and in the pending teleconference call.
         
        It might be helpful if everyone could respond on the list to the
following:
        *       Regarding item 1, does everyone agree with the action
plan?  If not, please suggest changes. 
        *       Regarding item 2, there has been quite a lot of
discussion on geographic representation, so I encourage specific
suggestions for change. 
        *       Regarding item 3, is their concensus on the item j
information to be requested from candidates?  If not, please suggest
edits.  We will need to discuss the other qualifications a lot more. 
        Hope this is helpful.  All of it can be changed, but we need to
do so very quickly because we have to produce a final proposal by
Wednesday, 10 Feb.
         
        Chuck
________________________________