Re: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Finalizing the RT process

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Wolf,

On Apr 26, 2010, at 2:05 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> 
>> 1. A modification of what we did before:[Gomes, Chuck]  If applicants are 
>> referred to the GNSO directly, we probably need to develop a GNSO 
>> application process: where to send applications; processing procedures; 
>> [WUK: ] I agree with Chuck
> I was assuming we'd leave it as it is, apps go ICANN central => GNSO Sec, 
> which notifies the council list (and notes any self-identified affiliation) 
> and posts to the web.  ICANN logs each and has a central record of (a 
> responsibility for) the files before distributing, the process is the same 
> for all SO/ACs (important, no?), and Glen is less burdened.  Having them come 
> direct and devising separate processes adds complexity, but does it add 
> benefits? 
> [WUK: ] The benefit could be broader GNSO participation in the process 
> development. During the 1st round there was a lot of trouble to convince 
> people in the GNSO community of what the council and its related teams were 
> suggesting. So one of the lessons learned is: providing even more 
> transparency - and getting more people involved. E.g. on the GNSO webpage 
> there is already an AoC wiki established but empty.

Just to be sure I understand: how would having apps sent to GNSO directly 
rather than to ICANN increase transparency and participation? If I were 
considering tossing my hat in the ring, I'm not sure I'd care which email 
address I sent to... 
> [WUK: ] I think the requirement of 10 hrs/week commitment let potential 
> applicants hold back their applications. It seems to me too much, and you 
> know yourselves that the amount of work is going to vary over the working 
> period.
Hmmm....good point.  I guess at the time we were worrying about having too many 
apps, including from folks who might not be prepared for the workload that'd 
come once the thing gets into full swing (at which point ten hours might 
actually be an underestimatation).  Perhaps we need language that has more 
temporal differentiation across the full cycle?
> [WUK: ] Ok with that. BTW: what is IMHO (In My Homemeade Opinion??) 
Humble 
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=IMHO&aq=f&aqi=g9g-s1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
>> 
> 
> [WUK: ] Again, that's a matter of having the basic conditions solid from the 
> beginning (e.g. number of GNSO seats per RT) and of transparency (see wiki).
We'd have to get advanced answers/guesses from the selectors...Does this affect 
the choice between models 1 and 2?

Which do you favor, BTW?

Thanks,

BD