Re: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft permanent RT endorsement process

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

Unless someone can think of something else missing or ambiguous, there are four 
things to decide and we can send this off to Council, tomorrow or Friday latest.

#1

On May 26, 2010, at 4:04 PM, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Looks good except two concerns. I think 10 hrs per week will be better 
> understood than some cumulative number of days. We might want to mention the 
> possibility of F2F meetings.

Agree

#2
> 
> I also think it should include some deadline to the SGs to deliver their 
> endorsements.

Agree.  "ASAP" is too loose and someone will come back demanding to know more 
precisely, or will move too slow and think it's ok, etc.  The point is, don't 
we want to move it along and ideally have consideration at the next possible 
council call ( ICANN's call deadline might make it impossible to do the very 
next, so we skip one and finalize three weeks after)?  If so I'd bound the 
time.  If a week's too short for some SGs, how about ten days?

#3

Carolyn asked about the gender split.  I advocated the original language but 
various people raised concerns, and the AT pool was probably indicative of what 
we could expect going forward.  Plus, in the event Council puts forward 4 
names, saying at least 1/3rd means in effect we're requiring two of each, 
probably too much to hope for.  So we could end up having to fire up the 
diversity mechanism often.  Just saying not all the same is pretty lame but it 
avoids all that and may lower blood pressures (although not in NCSG, colleagues 
will ask me...).  So: revert to original or stay with this?  I'll roll with 
whichever.

#4

Another goof on my part, in additional requirements I added the line about 
specialized expertise people wanted (given security/stability etc) without 
seeing it's too close to the prior line about if you're not in the GNSO tell us 
your expertise.  So what do we really want to ask in the bracketed element 
below? 7 is about knowledge of/engagement in GNSO or equivalent, 8 is on 
specialized expertise relevant to the RT.  Keep them separate or merge the 
points somehow?

7. A two to three paragraph statement about the applicant’s knowledge of the 
GNSO community and its structure and operations, and any details of his/her 
participation therein or, in the event that an applicant has not been involved 
in the GNSO community, a two to three paragraph description of [his/her 
qualifications that would be of relevance to the applicable RT;]
8. A one paragraph statement outlining the specialized technical or other 
[expertise they possess that would allow them to fully and effectively 
contribute to the work of the RT on which they wish to serve.]

Thanks,

Bill

PS: Oh, and I see on the edits that someone named Verisign reminded me there's 
no ICANN "secretariat."  Oops, you can see where I spend my time...:-(




> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:57:12 
> To: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>; <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft permanent RT endorsement process
> 
> Please find my edits/comments attached 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im 
> Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Mai 2010 21:37
> An: William Drake
> Cc: Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft permanent RT endorsement process
> 
> Thanks for catching that Bill.  Here is the correct one.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:45 PM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck
>> Cc: Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft permanent RT endorsement process
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> On May 25, 2010, at 8:35 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Bill for getting this moving and thanks Caroline for your
>> edits.
>>> I added some suggested edits.
>> 
>> Chuck, the doc you attached is the old one from the accountability
>> transparent team.  Luckily the edits from you shown are from February,
>> so I think you just attached the wrong one rather than editing the
>> wrong one.  Please send along your edits of today's version....
>>> 
>>> Chuck
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-
>> dt@xxxxxxxxx]
>>>> On Behalf Of Caroline Greer
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 10:14 AM
>>>> To: William Drake; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft permanent RT endorsement process
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks Bill. I just caught a few small typos - revisions attached.
>> 
>> Thanks for catching these, as I said I was rushing. First one was a
>> whopper.  2nd and 3rd we are two people divided by a common language,
>> but I'll roll with whatever the group sense is. 4th and 5th agreed.
>> 
>> Chuck, I guess edit this version and resend?
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> We seem to have relaxed the gender diversity requirement? We
>>> previously
>>>> said no more than 2/3 coming from one gender and now we are saying
>> the
>>>> applicants can't all be of the one gender. That change is fine by
> me
>>>> but I just wondered if I had missed that discussion somewhere along
>>> the
>>>> way.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Are we expecting the Council to be ready to vote on additional
>>>> candidates if the diversity needs piece kicks in? It strikes me
> that
>>>> some preparation might need to be done if that need arises as I
>> don't
>>>> know if Councilors would be ready to vote on the call straight
> away.
>>>> Perhaps we can avoid this difficulty by doing some prep work
>>> beforehand
>>>> to figure out who will end up as being endorsed......or we see how
>> we
>>>> get on and if some folks aren't ready, we do a quick follow up
>> Council
>>>> call?
>>>> 
>>>> Caroline.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-
>> dt@xxxxxxxxx]
>>>> On Behalf Of William Drake
>>>> Sent: 25 May 2010 14:22
>>>> To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft permanent RT endorsement process
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I'm really swamped with other stuff, so the attached was
>>> drafted
>>>> fairly quickly and may need some fine tuning of language.  But we
>>>> needed somewhere to start, and I think it captures the points
> people
>>>> have raised in moving toward a simplified model; let me know if
> not.
>>>> 
>>>> Let's tinker and tweak and then get it off to the SGs for buy-in.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> <AoC RTs Process for GNSO Endorsements with Drake and Gomes
>> edits.doc>
>> 
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>> Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>> ***********************************************************
>> 
> 
> 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************