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

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

Bill, 
 
I think you may be correct that our requirements are probably just about
ready for prime time.  I'll let Caroline comment regarding any RySG
input.  As far as the time commitment goes, I think if we just need to
make a general statement that it is very important for whoever is
endorsed by the GNSO to be able to commit the required time.  Regarding
the questions you asked toward the end, I responded in line below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 5:09 AM
        To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck
        Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Finalizing the RT process
        
        
        Hi 

        Consolidated response to Chuck's recent posts...

        On Apr 26, 2010, at 10:18 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


                
                Here are the personal comments I sent to Marco and the
SOAC list regarding the draft call for candidatures.


        All made sense to me..
        


        On Apr 26, 2010, at 10:01 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


                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.


        Wolf raised a concern about the ten hours per week workload
description, and Chuck brought up with Marco the call's formulation of
"between 15 and 20 days."  Assuming the latter will be tweaked and
retained in the general call, perhaps we can just drop mention of the
time commitment from ours? 

        Otherwise, nobody has raised any other points on the way our
additional requirements are framed.  Did anyone receive any feedback
from their SGs or applicants about these that we should consider, or can
we treat them as ready for prime time?


        On Apr 26, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


                
                Here is a first draft of the ICANN Call for Applicants.
Please provide me any comments you have and I will forward them on.  I
plan to submit some comments later today that I will send to this list.
                 
                Note that the document emphasizes that the applicants
being sought in this requesat are supposed to be "in representation of a
Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee."  Also note that feedback
on this announcement is needed by mid-May. 


        I guess they're really seeing this as a sort of corporatist
interest representation model, and the call adds, "Candidatures to serve
as independent experts will not be considered."   Personally I think
this is too limiting and might move the process further away from the
DT's January reply in the PCP that members  should be broadly neutral
and focused on the collective good, and that SO/ACs should be able to
suggest independent experts etc.   We can still nominate unaffiliated
experts as potential GNSO reps, but one suspects they're generally not
going to be viewed as coequal with SG reps.
        [Gomes, Chuck] I am not sure whether they are conciously moving
away from the independence of all members to a more representative
approach or not.  They could just be using the word 'representative' in
a loose sense, i.e., 'coming from' rather than 'giving the views of'.
But their language certainly could be as you describe.  Also, with
regard to the independent experts, the way I understood it is that
independent experts would not be selected by SO's and AC's; in other
words, they will be selected via a different process by the RT.  I don't
take that to mean that SO's and AC's could not recommend experts via
that separate process.


        On Apr 26, 2010, at 10:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


                You are absolutely correct Wolf.  Our process changes
considerably if we only get one or two or even three seats.


        Sorry to be dense, but I'm not getting the point Wolf and Chuck
are making here.  The number of seats will be assigned to GNSO  could
well vary across the RTs, e.g. 2-4, but how does that affect our
standing process?  I would have thought we'd follow the same system
regardless, e.g. we put forward up to five names (one per SGs +
independent, in model 1) or more (in Tim's 2 or Chuck's SGs + multiple
possible unaffiliateds) and then the selectors do their thing, it being
understood not all SGs or unaffiliated nominees are necessarily going to
be included in all RTs in a given cycle.  What's wrong with that, and if
there is something, is the idea that we'd construct some more complex
structure with different nomination procedures for each conceivable RT
size?
        [Gomes, Chuck] You are right Bill.  If reasoning was faulty.
Whether we get four slots or some lesser number, we can still allow each
SG to nominate one person.  What will change is that the Selectors'
jobs.  They may have to narrow down our list further if there are less
than 4 slots. 


________________________________

                        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
                        
                        
                        I added more to the discussion below in just one
place.


                                
                                [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. 

        Ok great, that's what I thought...I couldn't imagine they'd want
each different submission procedures for each SO/AC.  And this
presumably also means, per previous, that they envision posting to the
web a consolidated list of all apps submitted, including those that were
not endorsed.  So the selectors see them, nobody gets buried. However,
"Only those applicants whose candidature has been endorsed by their
selected SO/ACs will be retained for selection."  So that clears up
another ambiguity we'd discussed.

        Which then brings us back to the outstanding issues here:


        On Apr 24, 2010, at 10:42 AM, William Drake wrote:


                
                *Whether SGs should be able to endorse more than one
                *If a) above applies, whether the SG selections are at
least normatively "binding" on the selectors, or rather all the names
are on equal footing for selection, in which case the selectors have
broader discretion in picking our reps

        [the draft call answers this question]
        

                
                *Whether there should be a council-level process for
endorsing an unaffiliated, or leave this to SGs' discretion

        [and Chuck's suggestion that if Council votes it, there could be
multiple unaffiliated nominees alongside the SG ones]
        

                
                *Whether diversity should be pursued by the selectors at
the RT level or by the council at the GNSO level


        Thanks,

        Bill