RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Permanent Review Team Process

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,

Thanks for kicking this off again. 

I like your simplified, more streamlined approach. I think categories 5
& 6 did cause some confusion in the last round and so would support just
having one unaffiliated slot. And I am not aware of any community
objection thus far on our process - please correct me if I am wrong - so
lets just concentrate on dealing with what we ourselves found to be
problematic / challenging.

One thing that I battle with is letting 'outsiders' have a fair crack at
the whip. If there was any possibility of interviewing 'unknowns' or
getting them to know them a little better, I would be supportive.
However, perhaps as a first step, we could ask Council what their
opinion is on bringing 'outsiders' into the process - is it important to
have fresh eyes looking in or conversely, is it expected / desirable
that review team candidates have a strong sense of ICANN, its workings
and to have contributed in a meaningful way to its work output over the
years? I sensed that there were mixed views on this last time round (and
views may differ according to the actual review being undertaken of
course).

Would it be worth discussing the process / proposed changes with Peter
and Janis to see if they had any misgivings last time or have any
suggestions?

Obviously this time round, we need to have clarity on timing and to be
more in synch with any public announcements / calls for volunteers. 

Thanks.

Caroline.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: 15 April 2010 08:02
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Permanent Review Team Process


Hi,

Chuck has reminded me that the RT motion called for us to assemble a
permanent selection process in April.  Council can of course extend this
to May, it's not super pressing given the schedule for the next RT, but
probably we should start.

My inclination based on the first round experience would be to simplify
the thing as much as possible.  The idea of having a sixth slot open to
competition seemed like a reasonable way to preclude any unhappiness
among any SGs about having only one shot, and to give the selectors more
flexibility if they needed it.  Alas, the process generated much more
tooth gnashing than expected (and IMHO, than was merited).  Given the
angst, the thin value-added, and the fact that the the selectors
obviously found it attractive to just go with the SG nominations, I
would propose we eliminate this slot.

I tend to think we still need to have a slot for unaffiliated, even if
most cases the selectors will probably be reluctant to pick such a
candidate over those that got consensus within SGs.  It wouldn't seem
fair to me if people from the GNSO community or outside experts who
don't fit comfortably into one of the boxes or have a strong shot at
being selected by a SG have no hope of even being considered for a RT.
Also, this slot might again give us the option of having at least some
veneer of diversity.  Dealing with this slot shouldn't be too complex;
the evaluation team review does a review of the options, makes a rec or
reports its members positions, then a majority vote, voila.  It really
wasn't a big deal last time.

And of course the main bit would be that the four SGs continue to select
their own nominees through whatever internal mechanisms they deem fit.

As for diversity I recognize that we probably have to make the language
a bit more flexible as some SGs are likely to continue nominating
USians, but personally I still think it's reasonable to say that if the
pool allows, GNSO's nominees should be at least 1/3 women and 1/2 non-US
(well, the language would be more neutral, but effectively that's what
we mean).

Oh and the idea of SGs "endorsing" candidates for the 5th/6th slots just
confused people, I'd dump it.  

Four SG slots, one majority elected unaffiliated slot, with an ET to
parse unaffiliated candidates and lead on dealing with any massive
diversity failures seems straight forward enough to me.

What do others think?

Bill