[gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection

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

Note that I just sent this message Janis in response to his message
below.
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: Gomes, Chuck 
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:57 AM
To: 'Louis Lee'; Janis Karklins
Cc: soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx; Rod Beckstrom; Marco Lorenzoni; Donna
Austin; Alice Jansen
Subject: RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection


Janis,
 
I would like to strongly endorse Louie's recommendation and also suggest
the following: The request for applicants should refer applicants
seeking endorsement from an SO or AC to the applicable SO or AC.  The
GNSO is currently developing a long term process for endorsing
candidates for AoC RTs and plans to finish that not later than June
2010.  That means that it may not be possible to endorse candidates by
June.  I think it would be preferrable if the GNSO process was finalized
before applicants seeking GNSO endorsement applied for such endorsement.
 
So the time line below does not work well for the GNSO and we really
would like to handle the next two RT endorsement much better than the
first.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Louis Lee
        Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:35 AM
        To: Janis Karklins
        Cc: soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx; Rod Beckstrom; Marco Lorenzoni;
Donna Austin; Alice Jansen
        Subject: Re: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection
        
        
        Thanks, Janis. I will forward the message on.

        One recommendation is that you open the application window again
to allow more applicants from the ASO side only.  The AoC recommends
that a review team member serves on no more than one team. While I was
the only one to have applied, I have a couple colleagues interested in
serving on the other team that calls for an ASO-endorsed member. (I
would not feel disadvantaged in any way if this happened.) 
        
        Louie 
        --  

        Please forgive the brevity of this message as it was sent from
my mobile device.

        On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:19 PM, "Janis Karklins"
<janis.karklins@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
        
        

                Dear colleagues

                

                Two Affirmation-mandated reviews are to start on October
1st, namely the 'Whois policy'; and 'Security, Stability and Resiliency
of the DNS'.
                The lesson we learned from the 'Accountability and
Transparency' experience is that the process leading to the
establishment of a Review Team can be quite time-consuming. Hence my
suggestion would be to start the preliminary activities for these
upcoming reviews quite soon. 

                

                Based on our experience I would like to suggest the
following sequence:

                *         Chairs consult their respective AC/SO on the
size and composition of the both RTs - next 3 weeks.

                *         After agreement among Chairs on the issue
above, the call for nominations is renewed and each AC/SO would endorse
2-3 time more candidates that agreed above - mid May - 20 June.

                *         Selectors make selection and announce
composition of the both RTs at the end of the Brussels meeting.

                

                Would this sequence be acceptable? Pls provide your
comments at your earliest convenience.

                

                Best regards

                JK

                

                PS. The proposal has not been agreed yet by both
Selectors. These are just my personal ideas. JK

                

                



                Click here
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/liM09!KwlirTndxI!oX7Ujam5VJmC8gUNMjh1yhD
CHk2YeXT4eNg6ffnrh97zEADlJAxlYjbj3RTEf5tQBqpNg==>  to report this email
as spam.