[gnso-arr-dt] Re: :ateral complexities

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ok, I just think the way this all playing out is being made unduly complex, but 
whatever.

But shouldn't we work through the big remaining issue of the process on 
diversity before sending them our homework to copy?

On Feb 8, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Bill,
>  
> My guess is that Peter may have been aware or at least suspected that the 
> ccNSO was having trouble coming up with a process for their endorsements and, 
> having found out that we were working on one, thought that it might help them 
> to see what we were considering.  If I do as Peter suggested, I would only 
> send the draft to Chris Disspain with lots of qualifications stated. 
>  
> Four of our drafting team, not including myself are okay with this.  You are 
> the first one to express concerns.  I could ask Chris to not forward it to 
> anyone else but suggest that if he finds any of the ideas helpful, he could 
> share them.  What do you think?
>  
> Chuck
> 
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 11:46 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: :ateral complexities
> Importance: High
> 
> Probably we should stop having ten different conversations under the subject 
> line, Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement of AoC Review Team 
> Volunteers.
> 
> Meanwhile I'm reading another message in which Marco suggests to Chuck that 
> we deal with applications being due on the same day council is supposed to 
> decide by sending Janis and Peter applications we've not looked at yet under 
> the label "pending confirmation."  
> 
> I recognize this is a first time learning experience for us all but the 
> messiness is getting troublesome.  In this context, I don't understand the 
> imperative to send the ccNSO a document we haven't even finalized in the DT, 
> much less gone to the Council with.   What if on the 18th the Council can't 
> agree to it and wants changes etc?  In the meanwhile people elsewhere in 
> ICANN are walking around thinking our process is something it's not, then we 
> have to notify them again when we have an alternative, maybe have them 
> speculating about what changed and why...
> 
> Not a big deal but it seems to me this has been complicated enough already by 
> having to adjust to others' procedural hiccups, so why add more things to the 
> mix?  We've received no info about what other SO/ACs are doing, so why can't 
> we each just do our homework, agree our respective procedures, and then 
> notify others?
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Feb 8, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
>> 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] 
>> 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:
>> 
>> 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.  
>> 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  
>> 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.  
>> 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.  .
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>