Re: AW: [gnso-et] Evaluation Team Wiki

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Caroline,

Sooo...you've been two years on the NomCom, eh?  As demonstrated by the 
experience recounted below, this would seem to suggest a perfect match with the 
ET's leadership needs, no...?  :-)

BD


On Feb 24, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Caroline Greer wrote:

> What is your question re. the NomCom Bill - how do NomCom members evaluate 
> based on specific criteria?
> 
> Having been on the NomCom for two years, I can tell you that evaluation is 
> not a scientific process and can be very difficult (and we too had endless 
> discussions about diversity!). A lot of the evaluation is based on personal 
> experiences of candidates and members sharing real live examples of how 
> candidates have contributed etc etc. Admittedly, that can become difficult 
> when 'outsiders' try to get in but those cases may be few and far between in 
> this instance.
> 
> Each NomCom is different but scoring, ranking and elimination round 
> techniques have been used and can be effective in reaching end results if 
> done properly. I would not recommend prioritizing different criteria however 
> and allocating scores accordingly but rather trying to get an overall sense 
> of the candidate - ie, the full picture. 
> 
> Happy to share my experiences insofar as I can (NB: all NomCom members are 
> bound by a confidentiality agreement) if you have other questions.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Caroline.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> William Drake
> Sent: 24 February 2010 15:08
> To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Glen@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-et] Evaluation Team Wiki
> 
> 
> Hi Wolf
> 
> Helpful post that pushes the ball downfield.  A couple comments:
> 
> On Feb 24, 2010, at 3:01 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 1. Timing and applications processing
>> 
>> After the application deadline (07 March) all applications with GNSO 
>> self-identification shall be sent to the council chair to be forwarded to 
>> the respective SGs. In addition all apps without any self-identification 
>> according to the AoC DT action plan shall be sent to the Council (DT or even 
>> ET?) for identification purposes.
> 
> I would think the ET could take the lead on identifying (and consult Council 
> if needed), rather than splitting things up, no?
> 
>> If no allocation to any SG or At-Large/ALAC is feasible these apps shall be 
>> handled by the ET.
>> 
>> After SGs notification of their nominations the (SG related) applications 
>> left should be sent to the ET for the assessment. Constituency day (09 
>> March) would be an excellent date for the SGs to vote on their nominations. 
>> But to do this successfully requires a timely distribution of the relevant 
>> applications to the SGs/constituencies on 08 March.
> 
> I too think constituency day would be optimal and have suggested to NCSG we 
> try to do our process then.  If SGs dawdle that holds back the ET sine we 
> won't know which SG-backed candidates are for the allocated slots and don't 
> need to be assessed and which are for the competitive slots and do.  Not much 
> point in us spending time on the former.
>> 
>> 
>> Lets assume all this can be achieved as outlined then the ET could start on 
>> 10 March with the assessment. As members who attend the Nairobi meeting 
>> shall be on travel from 12 March at the latest the assessment and report 
>> should be ready by this date.
>> 
>> 2. Assessment
>> 
>> My suggestion: try to come up with a recommendation of candidates to the 
>> council.
>> 
>> The assessment should be based on the criteria lists (ICANN's and GNSO 
>> requirements). Maybe we could do it by rating each application against each 
>> criterion if applicable (not "ranking" of candidates). But this to my mind 
>> makes sense only in case we have a critical number of apps. The assessment 
>> result should be mirrored to the diversity requirements, too.
> 
> This sounds right in principle, but I'm not sure how well it will work in 
> practice...part of why I was a bit skittish about the ET concept from the 
> outset.  How, objectively and fairly, can we assess people in terms of 
> criteria like
> 
> * Team spirit, adaptability; 
> * Willingness to learn; 
> * Capacity to put aside personal opinions or preconceptions; 
> * Ability to interpret quantitative and qualitative evidence; 
> * Capacity to draw conclusions purely based on evidence; 
> 
> For people we know or who are known by others we know and trust, judgements 
> may be affected by perceptions that knowingly or not intermingle factors like 
> whether the person's a forceful or at least persistent advocate of positions 
> with which we happen to dis/agree, or does so in a style we find 
> dis/agreeable.  For persons nobody has much info on, the challenges are 
> bigger.  Of course everyone will act in good faith and try their best to 
> render fair judgements, but this process is inherently fraught with 
> difficulties.  And that's pre-council voting...as I said at the outset, I'll 
> be very interested to see whether ET recs can trump a priori SG positions and 
> preferences if there's variance.
> 
> Anyway, I personally cannot see any principled methodological basis upon 
> which to disaggregate and "rate" people by these criteria.  We may in some 
> cases have some sense of whether or not a person is e.g. willing to learn, 
> but attaching numerical values to it...I wouldn't know how to justify this, 
> especially if we were ever asked to do so.   This will be art, not science, 
> and denying that could just get us into trouble.  I suspect Peter and Janis 
> will be making calls based on their overall sense of how well people embody 
> and mix desirable attributes, and a priori I'd suggest a similar orientation. 
>  Having to explain our sense of things to each other and look for any 
> consensus can lead to fine tuning, too.
> 
>> 
>> It seems to me that there is still some time to evaluate the assessment 
>> process - it should be clear until 07 March the latest.
>> 
>> Comments? Ideas?
> 
> Anyone know how the NomCom does this?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: owner-gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von 
>> Gomes, Chuck
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 22:43
>> An: William Drake
>> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx
>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-et] Evaluation Team Wiki
>> 
>> 
>> Is there another volunteer to lead the ET?
>> 
>> Chuck 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:58 PM
>>> To: Gomes, Chuck
>>> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-et] Evaluation Team Wiki
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> On Feb 23, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I sent a message last week asking if anyone was willing to 
>>> take the lead on the ET but haven't seen any responses.  I 
>>> believe it would be very helpful if the ET would begin 
>>> preparing for its work right away.
>>>> 
>>>> Bill - would you be willing and able to do that?
>>> 
>>> This wouldn't be my preference, as my schedule prior to 
>>> leaving for Nairobi is pretty tightly packed, and of course 
>>> once I'm there it's the usual wall to wall sessions etc.  
>>> Perhaps someone who's not attending would have a little more 
>>> time?  Anyway, the DT members here have been subjected to 
>>> more than enough email from me of late :-)
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>> 
> 
> ***********************************************************
> 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
> ***********************************************************
>