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

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

Comments on my reply to Janis are welcome.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:55 PM
        To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection
        
        
        Please note the latest exchange between Janis and I.
         
        It would really help us if we can finish the DT work as early as 
possible in May.
         
        Chuck

________________________________

        From: Gomes, Chuck 
        Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:54 PM
        To: 'Janis Karklins'; 'Louis Lee'
        Cc: soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx; 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Marco Lorenzoni'; 
'Donna Austin'; 'Alice Jansen'
        Subject: RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection
        
        
        Janis,
         
        I don't think it should be any problem at all finalizing GNSO 
endorsements at least a month before the next two RT start.  And I think it 
would be possible to call for volunteers before we totally finalize our 
procedures, but let me bounce this off some others in the GNSO before commiting.
         
        Chuck


________________________________

                From: Janis Karklins [mailto:janis.karklins@xxxxxxxxx] 
                Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 11:58 AM
                To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Louis Lee'
                Cc: soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx; 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Marco 
Lorenzoni'; 'Donna Austin'; 'Alice Jansen'
                Subject: RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection
                
                

                Chuck

                Thanks for your reply. This is exactly our intention to avoid 
stepping on the same rake. 

                What would be your suggested timeline? 

                Can we put requirement of prior endorsement by the SO/AC in the 
call for volunteers? It would allow to launch a call while the GNSO is still 
finalizing the internal procedure. Or that wouldn’t work?

                We need to give the team at least one months before the start 
of the process to work thru organizational issues.

                Best regards

                JK

                 

                From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
                Sent: piektdiena, 2010. gada 23. aprīlī 16:57
                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!oX7Ujam5VJmC8gUNMjh1yhDCHk2YeXT4eNg6ffnrh97zEADlJAxlYjbj3RTEf5tQBqpNg==>
  to report this email as spam.