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

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

Tim indicated that he supported 30 days so maybe we should go with that.  I am 
pretty sure that the RySG could do it in 21 days but I am okay with 30 days.  
I’d like to think that we will not need to rush it going forward.  Whatever 
time frame we put, we need to communicate it to the selectors and supporting 
staff so that we are given enough time to follow our process.

 

Chuck

 

From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 3:50 PM
To: william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx; 
gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft permanent RT endorsement process

 

Bill

Yes, I am fine with the gender language as I think I indicated when I raised it 
- I just wondered how the change had come about but I must have missed one or 
two conversations.

I am sure we could squeeze the 30 day period too. Maybe 21 days at worse, but 
let's see what Chuck comes up with.

Many thanks for pulling all this together. 

----------------
Caroline Greer
Director of Policy
dotMobi


----- Original Message -----
From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx 
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>; owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
<owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
<gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed May 26 20:22:50 2010
Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft permanent RT endorsement process

Hi

We're getting there...

>> #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."

Wolf can you roll with the ten hour wording the others suggest? 
>
>>
>> #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"?

I know SGs have different dynamics and conditions, but isn't 30 days to pick 
one name out of a subset of probably smallish pools a little cautious?  If a SG 
took that full period and depending on timing we then had to wait three weeks 
for the next Council meeting, we'd be talking about basically freezing in place 
a routine, ongoing oversight process for two months after the close of the Call 
for Applications.  I can't help wondering if that wouldn't cause some 
complications or stress for somebody...

But, if this is what you need, and ICANN can accommodate it...Chuck since 
you've been in frequent contact with the Selectors and staff, would you mind 
checking with them whether GNSO notification of our nominees two months after 
the Call closes will work?  And also, if we're going to refer to it in our 
document, it'd be good to know what definitively they're calling it, Call for 
Applications or whatever, and maybe even scan a revised or final text if they 
have it.

>>
>> #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.

Caroline, ok with the gender language others prefer? 
>
>>
>> #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.

Ok...but then what are we asking in y that's different from 8 was my question, 
do you want some sort of language making the former about GNSO fluency (or, for 
outsiders, I guess familiarity GNSO issues) and the latter on the technical 
skill sets?  Like maybe

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 statement attesting to knowledge of the substantive 
issues for which the GNSO is responsible.