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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ok for me
regards
olga

2010/2/8 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  I forgot to bring this up at the end of our call today.  Does anyone
> object to me sending the draft plan that Bill will be sending around with
> edits we agreed to today to the ccNSO as Peter suggested.  Of couse it would
> be sent with lots of disclaimers regarding "a work still in progress", etc.
>
> Chuck
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Marco Lorenzoni [mailto:marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 08, 2010 3:42 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Marika Konings; Liz Gasster
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement
> of AoC Review Team Volunteers
>
>  Good morning Chuck, two questions:
>
> 1)      Is the DT Ok with the sharing of your methodology with ccNSO, as
> suggested by Peter?
>
> 2)      Marika told me that today you’ll have a Council call on selection
> of volunteers. Do you want me to participate? No problem from my side, I can
> make it for about one hour if it can be of help.
>
> Thanks
>
> Marco
>
>
>
> Marco Lorenzoni
>
> ---------------------
>
> ICANN
>
> Director, Organizational Review
>
> marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx
>
> Phone: +32.2.234 78 69
>
> Mobile: +32.475.72 47 47
>
> Fax: +32 2 234 7848
>
> Skype: marco_lorenzoni
>
> ---------------------
>
> 6, Rond Point Schuman
> B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 04 February, 2010 14:49
> *To:* Marco Lorenzoni
> *Cc:* Marika Konings
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement
> of AoC Review Team Volunteers
>
>
>
> Thank you very much Marco.  I personally am okay with sharing the draft
> endorsement plan with the ccNSO but want to check with the DT members to see
> if anyone has any concerns.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Marco Lorenzoni [mailto:marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:44 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Marika Konings
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement
> of AoC Review Team Volunteers
> *Importance:* High
>
> Chuck, 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.
>
> Peter suggests also to share your draft endorsement process with ccNSO,
> they might be interested to work on the same line; do you have any objection
> / do you have a consolidated version to circulate?
>
> Thanks
>
> Marco
>
>
>
> Marco Lorenzoni
>
> ---------------------
>
> ICANN
>
> Director, Organizational Review
>
> marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx
>
> Phone: +32.2.234 78 69
>
> Mobile: +32.475.72 47 47
>
> Fax: +32 2 234 7848
>
> Skype: marco_lorenzoni
>
> ---------------------
>
> 6, Rond Point Schuman
> B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 03 February, 2010 18:10
> *To:* Marco Lorenzoni
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement
> of AoC Review Team Volunteers
>
>
>
> Thanks Marco.  Much appreciated.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Marco Lorenzoni [mailto:marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:58 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Subject:* FW: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement
> of AoC Review Team Volunteers
>
> Chuck, I saw this and just asked Peter and Janis if they are positive on
> this possibility.
>
> If I receive something even before your formal request I let you know.
>
> Thanks
>
> Marco
>
>
>
> Marco Lorenzoni
>
> ---------------------
>
> ICANN
>
> Director, Organizational Review
>
> marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx
>
> Phone: +32.2.234 78 69
>
> Mobile: +32.475.72 47 47
>
> Fax: +32 2 234 7848
>
> Skype: marco_lorenzoni
>
> ---------------------
>
> 6, Rond Point Schuman
> B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
>
>
>
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> *From: *Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Date: *Wed, 3 Feb 2010 07:50:54 -0800
> *To: *William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc: *"gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject: *RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement
> of AoC Review Team Volunteers
>
> That is exactly what I was thinking Bill.  But I didn't want to make the
> request unless I had a sense that the DT members support me doing so.  Does
> anyone object to me sending a request to the Board/Staff asking for a "one
> week extension of time beyond 17 February (i.e., 24 Feb) for Council
> endorsement of GNSO volunteers"?  If I hear no objections today, I will
> send it.
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* William Drake  
> [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday,  February 03, 2010 10:46 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
>
>
> Thanks for the detailed suggestions Chuck.  Obviously we need to  know
> first if they will extend the timeline, as Marco previously rejected that
>  possibility and said Janis and Peter will be Selectors on the 20th.  If
>  everyone agrees, as Chair could you fire off the extension request, and
> when  we know either way we can work through the rest?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 2, 2010, at 10:53 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I appreciate the  good discussion going on today and just now found some
> time to jump  in.  Here are some ideas that may help us move forward in both
> the near  term and longer term regarding a GNSO endorsement  process.
>
>
>
> I think it  would be helpful if we work on two separate endorsement
> processes: 1)  one for the first review team that has a very short window;
> 2) one for the  long term that could be applied for endorsement of
> volunteers for  future RTs.  I understand that the "Call for Applicants
> for the Position of Volunteer Review Team  Member" (
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13jan10-en.htm)  covers
> all four reviews but the only deadline set is for the first review  
> (*Accountability
> and  Transparency*), 17 February.  To work within this very  short
> timeframe, I think it will be impossible to develop a quality  long-term
> process and do it using a bottom-up approach that involves the  broader GNSO
> community.  That is why I think we should first narrow our  focus on a
> one-time process to address the immediate need and then spend  more time in
> the next month or two on developing a better process that  we can more
> thoroughly vet.  Using the various ideas that members of  our DT proposed on
> this list and taking into consideration the very tight  time constraints, I
> propose the following for the one-time  process:
>
>    1. *ASAP*: 1) send a request to the  Board/Staff for a one week
>    extension of time beyond 17 February  (i.e., 24 Feb) for Council 
> endorsement
>    of GNSO volunteers; 2) send a  request to Staff requesting that 
> applications
>    received from volunteers for  the Accountability and Transparency RT be
>    forwarded to the GNSO  Secretariat as soon as possible after receipt for
>    distribution to the  Council list and other GNSO organization lists; 3)
>    notify GNSO community  members that the GNSO endorsement process is under
>    development and  encourage volunteers from the GNSO to submit applications
>    via the ICANN  process; 4) request that SGs, Constituencies and other GNSO
>     groups encourage volunteers from their communities to submit applications
>     via the ICANN process.
>    2. *10  Feb*: 1) finalize a draft one-time process for the first
>     Accountability and Transparency RT and distribute to the Council with a
>     motion for Council approval; 2) publicly post and distribute draft process
>     GNSO groups; 3) send draft process to ICANN Staff and request that it be
>     sent as soon as possible to all GNSO volunteers with a request that  they
>    complete the GNSO request for information and send it to the GNSO
>     Secretariat by 17 Feb or as soon thereafter as possible but not later than
>     22 Feb
>    3. *18  Feb*: 1) Council approval of the one-time process; 2) Council
>     review & discussion of nominees identified to date; 3) form an  evaluation
>    team made up of one Councilor from each SG plus one NCA to  rate the
>    responses and report to the Council list not later than 23  Feb; request
>    that the AoC Review DT continue its work to develop  a longer-term process
>    for Council consideration in March or  April.
>    4. *24 Feb:  *Hold a brief Council teleconference call to review
>    volunteers and  finalize the list of volunteers endorsed by the GNSO for 
> the
>    2010  Accountability and Transparency RT.
>
>
> *Proposed  Details for GNSO Endorsements
> *
>
>
> The GNSO Council  will endorse up to six volunteers for the 2010 AoC
> Accountability and  Transparency RT as follows:
>
>    - Endorsement  requires a simple majority vote of each house.
>    - Assuming their  are volunteers who receive the necessary Council
>    votes, at least one  volunteer should be endorsed from each house.
>    - No more than  two volunteers should come from the same geographical
>     region.
>    - Volunteers must  not all be of the same gender and at least 1/3 of
>    each gender should be  represented if possible.
>    - In cases where  more than six total or more than one from a SG
>    receive at least  a simple majority from each house, ties will be broken as
>     follows, in the order presented: 1) geographical and/or gender diversity;
>     2) the total votes received; 3) the Council non-voting NCA will  be asked
>    to break the tie.  (We should check with Andrei to make he  is okay with
>    this.)
>
>
> Notes:  a) Endorsement is not automatic just because there are less than
> six  volunteers or because a volunteer is from a SG for which there is no
>  other volunteer or for geographical or gender reasons; b) having
>  appropriate skill and knowledge sets is the most important qualification
> and  hopefully the requirement for at least a simple majority of each house
> will  facilitate that goal; c) it is possible to endorse less than six
> volunteers,  to endorse no one from a SG, to not endorse volunteers from
> both  genders and/or have less than three geographic regions  represented.
>  .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William  J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for  International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International  and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>