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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Bill. I'd like to propose something more akin to what I thought
we were doing before (my fault for not understanding). 

When the applications are received we vet them (with SG assistance) to
be sure that the applicant meets the stated qualifications:

Sound knowledge of ICANN and its working practices and culture;
Good knowledge of the subject area of the review;
Team spirit, adaptability;
Willingness to learn;
Capacity to put aside personal opinions or preconceptions;
Analytical skills;
Ability to interpret quantitative and qualitative evidence;
Capacity to draw conclusions purely based on evidence;
Commitment to devote his/her time to the review process;
Whatever else we think is important.

>From those that are successfully vetted, we allow each SG to *endorse*
any applicant (maybe one per SG, maybe multiple). Once completed we
submit the entire set of applicants that passed the initial vetting of
qualifications and note those that have SG endorsement (and which SG
endorses them). Unaffiliated applicants will be included as long as they
are successfully vetted for the qualifications. We leave the geographic
and gender diversisty issues up to the Selectors to resolve, but we are
giving them a larger pool of applicants. 

This also allows more applicants to be considered by the Selectors.
Otherwise, I am concerned that the only applicants we will get are those
pre-ordained by the SGs - others won't see the point. This also seems
more fair to those that do bother to go through the application process.


Tim  

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Permanent Review Team Process
From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, April 15, 2010 2:02 am
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


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