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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim

Thanks for making my point.
See comments inserted

Regarding the time commitment I agree to Chucks proposal in his earlier e-mail 
just to make a general statement.


Regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von Tim Ruiz
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. April 2010 17:40
An: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Finalizing the RT process


Considering how the Selectors apparently intend to view/select the
candidates (different than what I had expected), it seems that any
candidates we endorse should only be ones that we are completely
comfortable with representing us (basically, they are leaving the
selection decision to us). So I think the number of seats does make a
difference. We could still have a single process but shouldn't it
account for a slight variation if the number of GNSO seats allowed on a
RT does not match the number of SGs. For example,

1. If there are four seats for the GNSO on the RT, each SG endorses a
Candidate WUK: in case there is no candidate from an SG they could endorse 
someone else, maybe non-affiliated. Those four candidates are forwarded to the 
Selectors and they
are guaranteed a seat on the RT. All SGs are happy.

WUK: And there is no reason to fill additional (non-affiliated) slots.

2. If there are less than four seats, each SG endorses a candidate.
Those four candidates go to the Council for a vote. The top X vote
getters are forwarded to the Selectors. If after two/three rounds of
voting it cannot be narrowed down to X, then the remaining cadidates are
all sent to the Selectors and they decide.

Candidates do not have to be members of a particular SG, so that leaves
the door open for non-affiliated candidates but it gives deferrence to
the SGs' decisions either way. WUK: see my comments above

It does not address the gender/geographic issue, but personally I think
if we try to address that it will just end up being used as a red
herring and I don't see anyone else, including the Selectors, getting
too excited about it.

WUK: the remaining question is how the non-affiliated candidates are going to 
be treated


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Finalizing the RT process
From: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, April 28, 2010 8:17 am
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "William Drake"
<william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

I've been offline for a while and am now trying to follow all the
threads on this topic. 
 
What are the main issues here - the time commitment? Seems like the
rest of the note is ok?
 
Are we expecting to change our GNSO requirements list in any way?
 
Thanks.
 
Caroline.
 
From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 28 April 2010 14:07
To: William Drake; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Finalizing the RT process


 
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