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

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

Regarding the timing of our work, note that the draft request for
applications that I forwarded from Marco today says the following:
"Applicants interested in being considered for endorsement by the [name
of SO/AC] are also invited to include in their candidature the
additional information required by [name of SO/AC, hyperlink]."  If this
stays this way, then we will need to have our requirements for
additional information approved by the Council prior to the final
annoncement being posted by ICANN.  Ideally, it would be great if we
were able to get Council approval of the those on 20 May; but if not
then, then 10 June at the latest.  If this DT could focus specifically
on those requirements in time to make a proposal to the Council by 12
May, that would be very helpful. We could then refine the rest of the
process for the 10 June meeting.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 2:59 PM
        To: William Drake; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Finalizing the RT process
        
        
        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