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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Chucks suggestion: "It is estimated that an average of 10 hours 
per week will be required...". I remember that the very ambitious timeline 
requirement was an impediment for some people to apply for the 1st review.
I also agree with his suggestion regarding the deadline for SGs. (ISPs have 
meetings every 3 weeks).
Gender diversity: ok with the current wording.

Expertise listing separately preferred.


Regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. Mai 2010 19:13
An: William Drake; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx; cgreer@xxxxxxxxx; 
gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft permanent RT endorsement process

Please see my comments below.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:48 AM
> To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck;
> cgreer@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft permanent RT endorsement process
> 
> 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
[Gomes, Chuck] I also agree and suggest we say something like "It is estimated 
that an average of 10 hours per week will be required in addition to F2F 
meetings."

> 
> #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?
[Gomes, Chuck] How about "As soon as possible but not later than 30 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.
[Gomes, Chuck] I don't think 1/3 works if we endorse only 4.  I am comfortable 
with the current wording.

> 
> #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.]
[Gomes, Chuck] I prefer listing 8 separately.

> 
> 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
> ***********************************************************
>