RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Two documents attached

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

There is not necessarily duplication between these two elements.  

*Identification of any financial ownership or senior
management/leadership interest of the applicant in registries,
registrars or other entities that are stakeholders or interested parties
in ICANN or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or
other arrangement;

*Indication of whether the applicant would be representing any other
party or person through her/his review team participation and, if so,
identification of that party or person;


Some examples:  (i) outside counsel for a company that isn't a
registrar, registry or other entity (and doesn't meet the rest of the
criteria); (ii) non-senior manager employee (or one who doesn't own
stock) in a company that isn't a registrar, registry, etc.  (iii) senior
manager of a registrar who will NOT be reprsenting the registrar's
interests through review team participation.

IPC has some comments on the criteria document.  I hope to have they
finalized soon.  of a companyand speaking very hypothetically, someone
who is a
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:11 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Two documents attached
Importance: High

Hi

On Feb 8, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> When you see all the redlining, you may think I didn't do a very good 
> job of cleaning these documents up.  If you would rather see clean 
> versions, please accept all the edits. My edits should appear in a 
> different color than Bill's.

Thanks Chuck.  I've accepted all so they're easier to read and attached,
with two exceptions noted below where the issues are unresolved.  Mostly
the changes should be noncontroversial, but of course if something's
been overlooked that needs more discussion folks should flag, and any
further tweaks we may need can be made on the currently clean versions
for easy ID.
> 
> Note that the due dates have been changed a little.  There should be 
> an ICANN announcement today extending the deadline for applications 
> for volunteers for the A&T DT to 22 Feb. and giving us until 1 March 
> to provide our endorsements.  I set a goal of Friday, 26 March for 
> finalizing our endorsements to try to avoid getting into the week of 1

> March when people will begin traveling to Nairobi.  If needed, we may 
> need Monday, 1 March if we cannot reach consensus on final 
> endorsements on 26 February.

Timeline seems the only way forward given that Marco said we can't
report nominees later than 1 March.  I note though that ICANN has yet to
announce the deadline extension, and confusion may ensue (yesterday
Robin sent NCSG a reminder of the still standing 17th deadline and I had
to reply no please hold off...).  I hope Marco Janis and Peter resolve
this today and post the extension.

In this context, the important operative bits of the Action Plan are 2 c
& d.  We should all get the word out in the SGs that applicants should
hold off finalizing and submitting their materials and in the 18th-22nd
window add the GNSO bits.

One question on the Action Plan revision: under 4c2, not later than 25
February, the SGs are requested to provide direction for their
Councilors regarding what candidates they should endorse for two open
endorsements.  Under 6b, the 18th Council call is to form an Evaluation
Team to rate the responses and report to the Council list not later than
25 Feb.  In this case, the SGs potentially are having a discussion and
then announcing on the 25th who if anyone they'd like to nominate for
the open seats without knowing how the ET has ranked the options.  So
for example, an SG decides ok we have two names we want to advance and
we rank them 1, 2, and then the ET comes back and says the SG's 1 is
ranked low but 2 higher, or whatever.  What is the practical effect of
the ET's ranking then?  The SG has decided how its Councilors will vote
in the 26th teleconference irrespective of the pan-SG ET's work.  If the
ET process is to serve any purpose, presumably it is to give SGs a
senses of how other SGs view the candidacies and the likely prospects of
their approval, which could lead to some recalibration.  It seems to me
that either the ET should report back to the SGs earlier, before they
announce preferences, or that we could dispense with the ET process
entirely (upon reflection, it's not entirely obvious what the value
is...we're adding an extra set of steps for what?).

Where the ET (or some other named grouping) can be useful is in dealing
with a first round outcome that has inadequate diversity, i.e. by
speeding up any horse trading and mutual adjustment between the 26th and
1st if needed.  But I'm not sure this morning if we really need it to
rank applicants...?

What do people think?  

> 
> Setting aside for a moment item 5 of the proposed process (i.e., the 
> second document), are there any concerns about any other elements of 
> either document.  In other words, can we say that we have reached 
> consensus on everything except item 5 of the process?

I left two sets of ed comments from Chuck unaccepted that need
discussion:

*Re: 5 and diversity, Chuck asks "How will the Evaluation Team know
whether the diversity goals are met.  I think this assumes that the
Evaluation Team will know the results of the SG selections and that may
not be possible."  My thought was that the ET would take this up after
the teleconference vote of the 26th if needed, by which point all
initial selections are known.  If the result was inadequate diversity,
then we'd have a vehicle for expediting and coordinating horse trading
etc (if possible...depends on the pool).  Of course, if we do an ET
ranking exercise earlier, diversity might enter into the advice then on
the open seats.

*If I understand correctly, Chuck asks if there isn't duplication
between these two elements of j:

*Identification of any financial ownership or senior
management/leadership interest of the applicant in registries,
registrars or other entities that are stakeholders or interested parties
in ICANN or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or
other arrangement;

*Indication of whether the applicant would be representing any other
party or person through her/his review team participation and, if so,
identification of that party or person;

Would be good to hear from the folks who wanted these provisions.

BD