<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-arr-dt] RE: :ateral complexities
- To: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] RE: :ateral complexities
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:31:57 -0500
I will wait until we wrap that up.
Chuck
________________________________
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 12:15 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: :ateral complexities
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
<x-msg://62/cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 07:50:54 -0800
To: William Drake
<william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<x-msg://62/william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: "gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
<x-msg://62/gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx> " <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
<x-msg://62/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
<x-msg://62/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. .
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|