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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The size of the RTs is critical and the allocated GNSO seats. It has to be 
discussed on SG level asap. To fix the final number within 2-3 weeks is 
challenging.
 


Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 


________________________________

        Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
        Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2010 19:58
        An: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection
        
        
        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. apr?l? 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.