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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have added this topic to the Council agenda for 21 April but we will
have very little time for discussion. There should be enough time though
for Bill to raise several questions that could then be discussed on the
Council list after the meeting.

One question that may need to be asked is this: Are there any objections
in the Council to extending the due date for a proposal to our 20 May
meeting?

I think it would be good to ask Peter and Janis for their feedback about
our process.  We might also want to prepare a brief questionaire seeking
feedback from Councilors and their respective groups, but I think we
would need to give a very short turn-around time for responses, e.g., 2
weeks.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 6:39 AM
> To: William Drake; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Permanent Review Team Process
> 
> 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
>