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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,
 
regarding the question of 4 vs 5 slots I personally would prefer 4 (SG
related). However that means that all GNSO applicants - except NCAs -
have to be allocated to a certain SG whether they like it or not. If we
agree that way then I'm happy with 4 slots. How shall we deal with them
otherwise?

Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 


  _____  

Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Montag, 17. Mai 2010 13:44
An: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] RT Permanent Endorsement Process


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