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

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

I added more to the discussion below in just one place.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:03 AM
        To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
        Cc: Gomes, Chuck; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Finalizing the RT process
        
        
        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.
                        [Gomes, Chuck] As of today (26 Apr), we know
that Staff wants applications sent directly to them so the only process
we need to firm up is how they will be handled after they are forwarded
to us.  I would think that would be fairly simple but it probably should
still be spelled out so that it is handled in a timely and orderly
manner.  We probably should post the GNSO process on the GNSO website. 


        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