Re: [gnso-arr-dt] RT Permanent Endorsement Process

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

On May 16, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>> It appears we put the permanent process aside for the moment to focus
>> on
>> the SSR and WHOIS per Janis.  So presumably we are shooting for the 10
>> June Council meeting, and need a motion by the 3rd, three weeks from
>> today.
> [Gomes, Chuck] We can't put the permanent process aside because it is needed 
> so that applicants for the SSR and Whois RTs know how to apply and what the 
> qualifications are.  You are correct though that we first need to agree on 
> the number of GNSO reps.  I think Wolf's motion takes care of that, assuming 
> we all agree with it.

I wasn't suggesting we should do that going forward, but rather was taking 
stock of the list discussion during the period I was offline.  So after giving 
Janis the number, the next step is to finalize a process for the 10 June 
meeting.
 
>> Endorsement Process
>> 
>> 1.  Can a SG decide not to endorse any candidate?  Can more than one SG
>> endorse the same person, e.g. someone not from one's own SG?

Everyone seems inclined to allow these flexibilities, although again if ever 
they're acted upon we could fall short of the number of slots requested per RT. 
 Presumably manageable.

(BTW it would be logical for the process doc to state how many slots GNSO is 
seeking to fill, I suppose four per, but we can't say that until the Selectors 
agree to it.  Would be helpful if they'd decide and announce the standard team 
sizes.)

>> 2.  Are people now inclined to abandon the concept of having an
>> Council-wide elected slot for people who consider themselves to be in
>> the GNSO community but not affiliated with/seeking the endorsement of
>> any particular SG? 

I don't see consensus on this point.  We have two models on the table, 4 vs 5 
slots, need to decide.
>> 
>> 3.  Re: diversity, in this model we'd only consider adding people to
>> move toward the objectives , rather than e.g. going back to SGs and
>> asking them to reconsider their first choice.

People thus far seem inclined to possibly vote on adding another person if 
needed, or to encourage SGs to consider alternative endorsements, in either 
event at the Council level.

>> a.  Would we still state the diversity objectives?

Seems to be consensus for stating but softening, e.g. "should."
>> 
>> b.  I presume Council would only be able to pick from the pool of
>> people
>> who applied to ICANN?  How many?  

Seems to be consensus.  Can leave the number open TBD as needed.

>> c.  In this model, would we abandon the Evaluation Team?  

Only one person addressed directly but IF we stick with 4 SG slots rather than 
4 + 1 voted unaffiliated then this would make sense, so have to decide the 
latter.

>> Additional GNSO Requirements.
>> 
>> 1.  In the first round we included in the in-house Action Plan (below)
>> the statement that "volunteers are encouraged to self- identify with
>> any
>> GSNO SG / Constituency with which they feel most closely affiliated."
>> I
>> suggest we move this encourgement to the Requirements, where it should
>> have been.

Seems consensus, easy point
>> 
>> 2.  In light of the ICANN CFP wording should we delete the "attestation
>> that the applicant is able and willing to commit at least ten hours per
>> week during the review period"?

One yes and one no so far on this

>> 3.  It has been suggested that for the SSR RT some indicator of
>> security/tech expertise would be useful.  

Consensus thus far for a line added about specialized expertise relevant to the 
RT

>> Action Plan
>> 
>> Our initial effort included a set of in-house procedures.  Depending on
>> what we decide about the process, will we still need to have such a
>> document?  

I've not seen anyone argue we need this, although if we have a slot 5 then the 
details previously covered in the AP should be incorporated into the EP.
>> 
>> It would be really helpful to hear from all members of the DT on these
>> and any related points.  I see that the 20 May Council agenda has 25
>> minutes allocated to this topic and that I'm supposed to convey the
>> DT's
>> recs, so any movement toward closure by then would be great.

We've heard from Chuck, Tim, Wolf-Ulrich and Caroline, which if memory serves 
is like half the DT.  If the rest is ok, can we please decide on 4 vs 5, i.e. 
separate space for unaffiliated or let them seek SG support?  With this main 
point unsettled we're not ready to write a doc.  Anyway, I'll be buried in the 
UN the next day and half, which doesn't lend itself to quick word smithing.

Chuck, given that we don't have a finalized process to propose or a motion, 
what do you want to do about the Thursday agenda?  If we really want to spend 
25 minutes anyway I suppose we could discuss and decide the # of slots issue in 
Council rather than the DT.  If instead we want to get consensus here first 
then maybe this should be just a five minute update thing and we can have the 
real discussion in June.

Bill