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

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

I will check with the selectors.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 3:23 PM
> To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx;
> cgreer@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> 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.
> 
>