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

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

No problem and yes, please do send the doodle Glen/Gisella. I suspect that from 
Wednesday of next week folks are travelling to their ICANN destinations so 
let's get our heads together before that. 

Many thanks. 

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


----- Original Message -----
From: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Caroline Greer; William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>; Glen@xxxxxxxxx <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Feb 24 20:09:19 2010
Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-et] Evaluation Team Wiki

Please note that I do not plan to actively participate on the ET but please 
feel free to let me know if I can be of any assistance.

Caroline - Thanks for assuming the lead role for the ET.  I suggest that Glen 
and/or Gisella send a Doodle poll out for Monday or Tuesday.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:04 AM
> To: William Drake
> Cc: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck; Glen@xxxxxxxxx; 
> gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-et] Evaluation Team Wiki
> 
> 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
> > ***********************************************************
> > 
>  
>