RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: Upcoming Affirmation reviews - draft call for candidatures

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

Note that the draft call also has a placeholder for a link to the GNSO
requirements.  We obviously cannot provide that until the DT and
ultimately the Council finalizes those.
 
Do we want to keep the requirements the same as published for the A&T
RT?  If not, what changes do we want to propose.
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: Gomes, Chuck 
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 10:14 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: Upcoming Affirmation reviews - draft call
for candidatures
Importance: High


Janis just sent me a reminder that he is looking for additional feedback
on the next draft call for candidatures for the next two review teams.
In that regard, please provide feeback this week if possible regarding
the following two questions?
 
1. Are you okay with the feedback I already provided (see below)?
 
2. Do you have any other feedback regarding the draft call?
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:19 PM
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: Upcoming Affirmation reviews - draft call for
candidatures


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

________________________________

From: Gomes, Chuck 
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:17 PM
To: 'Marco Lorenzoni'; langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx; ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx;
secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; janis.karklins@xxxxxxxxx; steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
jun@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ray Plzak; Rod Beckstrom; bmanning@xxxxxxxxxxx; Larson, Matt;
woolf@xxxxxxx; Donna Austin; Alice Jansen
Subject: RE: Upcoming Affirmation reviews - draft call for candidatures


Thanks Marco.  Let me start off the discussion.
 
Let me first say that these are my personal comments.  I have not vetted
them within the GNSO yet but will do so.
 
The second sentence it the Timeline sections says, "The approximate time
requirement for each team member is expected to last between 15 and 20
days."  I think it would help to word this differently.  As it stands,
it could be interpreted several ways, one of which is that the job will
be over in 15-20 days, which I do not believe is what is intended but a
newcomer could think that.  Here is one possible rewording: "The
approximate total time commitment for each team member is expected to be
15 to 20 days spread out over the course of the total review period."
 
Also in the Timeline section, item 3 says, " Promoting competition,
consumer trust and consumer choice - one year after the entry in
operation of the new gTLDs "  What does "entry in operation of the new
gTLDs" mean?  Does this timeframe mean one year after the first new gTLD
is entered into the root or one year after all applied for new gTLDs are
entered into the root?  Those two extremes will probably differ in a
range of years, so this needs to be more precisely defined.
 
The last sentence of the document says the following: "No double
membership, meaning that the same individuals cannot be appointed to
serve on more than one review team. This is strongly suggested in
considering the relevant amount of time that will be required by the
review exercises."  The first sentence sounds definitive; then the use
of "strongly suggested" in the second sentence makes it sound optional.
Which is it?  If it is definitely not allowed, the the last sentence
could be changed to something like the following:  "This restriction is
being imposed because of the large amount of time required for each of
the review exercises."  If the intent is to allow a little flexibility
here, then it might work to change this paragraph to something like the
following: "It is strongly suggested that there be no double membership,
meaning that the same individual cannot be appointed to serve on more
than one review team.  Any exceptions to this must be approved by
(Selectors?)."
 
As other input from the GNSO is received, I will forward it on.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Marco Lorenzoni [mailto:marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:38 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx; ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx;
secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; janis.karklins@xxxxxxxxx; steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
jun@xxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: Ray Plzak; Rod Beckstrom; bmanning@xxxxxxxxxxx; Larson,
Matt; woolf@xxxxxxx; Donna Austin; Alice Jansen
        Subject: Upcoming Affirmation reviews - draft call for
candidatures
        Importance: High
        
        

        Dear SO/AC Chairs,

        Following up on the recent discussion on the recruitment process
for members of the 'Security Stability and resilience' and 'Whois'
Review Teams, please find in attachment a draft text of the suggested
call for volunteers.

        The text has been prepared based on the experiences made during
the previous process of selection, trying to respect the key points
emerging from your recent discussion.

        The idea is to have a central repository for all applications,
and to forward applications to the relevant SO/ACs for endorsement. Only
those applicants that will be endorsed by SO/ACs will be considered by
Selectors for membership. 

        Please share your comments / proposals for modifications as to
get to an agreed text by mid-May.

        Thanks and best regards

         

        Marco Lorenzoni

        ---------------------

        ICANN

        Director, Organizational Review

        marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx> 

        Phone: +32.2.234 78 69

        Mobile: +32.475.72 47 47

        Fax: +32 2 234 7848

        Skype: marco_lorenzoni

        ---------------------

        6, Rond Point Schuman
        B-1040 Brussels, Belgium