RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection

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

Me too.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 8:19 AM
> To: Caroline Greer; owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx; William Drake; Gomes,
> Chuck
> Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection
> 
> Fine with me too.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 11:19:51
> To: William Drake<william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Gomes,
> Chuck<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection
> 
> 
> I am fine with that qualifications paragraph Bill.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Caroline.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: 28 May 2010 10:11
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Next selection
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> On May 27, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> >
> > Note the following message I just sent to the SOAC list regarding
> opening the call for AoC RT applicants.  As soon as we have our draft
> process, I would like to send it to Marco & Janis if no one objects.
> Can
> we finalize the proposed process not later than tomorrow so that Bill
> may send it to the Council list by then?  If so, then I will send it
as
> a draft to Marco & Janis.
> 
> Mixing together the details of the next two RTs and the permanent
> process seems to complicate discussion, how about we focus here on the
> latter.  To finalize we need clarification from selectors et al on the
> expected regular RT time cycles so contracted folk can decide how long
> they can have after the calls close, bearing in mind the potentially
> three week wait after that to the next council call.  When you reach
> closure we'll plug in the number.
> 
> Also was this suggestion on the qualifications ok with people
> 
> > 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.
>