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

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

Thanks Wolf.  I agree that detailed knowledge of specific GNSO areas is not 
critical, but it seems to me that a general knowledge would be helpful so that 
the GNSO endorsed candidate(s) could correct any erronious information if 
needed.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 8:44 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Summary of where we are
        
        
        What I'd like to point out is that we should keep the general review 
targets in mind - and I wanted to be sure that we have the same understanding 
about. Detailed knowledge in specific GNSO areas seems to me not critical for 
qualification.
         

        Kind regards
        Wolf-Ulrich

         

________________________________

        Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Gesendet: Montag, 8. Februar 2010 14:21
        An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Summary of where we are
        
        
        Thanks Wolf.  What do you mean by "we're looking for people capable to 
assess whether the processes implemented so far can meet the AoC requirements"? 
 What "processes implemented so far"?  Are you saying that the GNSO should not 
add to the AoC requirements in its endorsement process?
         
        Chuck


________________________________

                From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
                Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 7:06 AM
                To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
                Subject: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Summary of where we are
                
                
                Thanks Chuck for this briefing to which I generally agree.
                I've inserted one comment only with regards to the GNSO 
qualification requirements.
                As I understand the reviews we're looking for people capable to 
assess whether the processes implemented so far can meet the AoC requirements.
                 
                Regarding regional and gender diversity I could agree to your 
suggestion.
                 

                Kind regards
                Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

                 

                 

                Deutsche Telekom AG
                Head Office T-Home
                Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
                Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 140, 53113 Bonn, Germany
                +49 2244 873999 (Phone)
                +49 2244 873955 (Fax)
                +49 151 1452 5867 (Mobile)
                E-Mail: knobenw@xxxxxxxxxx
                www.telekom.com 
                
                Life is for sharing. 

                 

                Deutsche Telekom AG
                Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Chairman)
                Board of Management: René Obermann (Chairman),
                Hamid Akhavan, Dr. Manfred Balz, Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van 
Damme,
                Timotheus Höttges, Guido Kerkhoff, Thomas Sattelberger
                Commercial register: Local court Bonn HRB 6794
                Registered office: Bonn
                WEEE reg. no. DE50478376

                 

                 

________________________________

                Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
                Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. Februar 2010 16:07
                An: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
                Betreff: [gnso-arr-dt] Summary of where we are
                Wichtigkeit: Hoch
                
                
                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