<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: AW: [gnso-et] Evaluation Team Wiki
- To: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-et] Evaluation Team Wiki
- From: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:04:29 -0000
Ah, I just knew I had walked into that one as soon as I hit *send*! And Wolf
was definitely trying his best to frame either Olga or I....though I was not
buying his *diversity* argument at all :-)
I will take it on if you like....ably assisted by you all of course. Note that
I won't be in Nairobi however - does that make a difference?
How about we arrange a call for Monday or Tuesday of next week to talk through
some of the issues? I find the long email threads difficult to wade through at
times (although they should continue of course) and a group discussion can help
cut through it all. I'd be happy to do an agenda up tomorrow if you are all on
board.
Caroline.
-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 24 February 2010 15:57
To: Caroline Greer
Cc: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Glen@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-et] Evaluation Team Wiki
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
> ***********************************************************
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|