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

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

Wolf made one motion for the Council meeting on 20 May: That there be 4
GNSO slots on the two review teams.  It would be good if the Council is
able to act on that so that we can communicate it to Janis.  That would
possibly help the selectors finalize the size and composition of the
teams and it seems consistent with Chris Disspain's input which I
forwarded a little while ago and with the fact that early indicators
show that the size of the current RT seems to be working okay.

 

I personally still like the idea of endorsing up to five instead of four
candidates but am not hard line about that.  Maybe it would be helpful
if Bill asked for some discussion of that in the Council meeting on
Thursday and encourage Councilors to provide any thoughts in that regard
in the week following the meeting.  If we endorse five slots, I think
the fifth slot should be totally open.  If we endorse four slots, I
think it should be made clear like Tim said, that that the SGs may
endorse anyone, not just candidates affiliated with their SG.

 

If we do not use the 25 minutes allotted in the Council meeting, that
will be very helpful because the agenda is way too full.  It appears
that our time crunch has improved some.  Janis seems to be comfortable
with a little more time.  But it would be good if we could have final
Council action on a long term process by the 10 June Council meeting if
possible. 

 

Chuck

 

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:44 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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