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

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

I agree with Tim regarding "10 hours per week".  What we could say is something 
like "an estimated average of 10 hours per week".  I personally think that it 
is useful to be as clear as possible about the time commitment.

I also support a deadline for SGs but a 7-day deadline as I believe was in the 
previous draft was impossible.  My guess is that SGs will need as much as 30 
days.  What do others think?  In the case of the RySG we have a meeting every 
two weeks so we might be able to do it in shorter time frame, but I don't know 
what is reasonable for other SGs.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:04 AM
> To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck;
> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: cgreer@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft permanent RT endorsement process
> 
> 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.
> 
> I also think it should include some deadline to the SGs to deliver
> their endorsements.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -----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
> > ***********************************************************
> >
>