RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -

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

Please see my comments below.

Glen - Can you follow-up on Bill's last suggestion?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:20 AM
> To: Glen de Saint Géry
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 
> Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -
> 
> 
> Hi Glen,
> 
> Thanks for passing these along.  Have they been told that 
> they'll need to resubmit applications after the 18th that 
> address the additional GNSO requirements (assuming Council 
> approve those)?

Chuck: As I am sure everyone saw, Glen confirmed that the applicants were 
informed.
  
> 
> Either way, these early apps point to a tweak we should make 
> to the Proposed Process.  We don't presently say anything 
> about how apps will be allocated to the up to six slots.

Chuck: Not sure I agree here.  My understanding is the following: 1) We say 
that the SGs decide who, if any, will be allocated to four slots; 2)the Council 
will decide on the other two slots.  Do you think we need to be more explicit 
about that?  
   
> Perhaps we don't need to specify all the gory details, but at 
> a minimum it would be helpful if the text asked applicants to 
> say which SG, if any, they'd like to be nominated by.  (If 
> having been asked they still give no preference the 
> Evaluation Team or Council-TBD--would have to make a 
> determination in accordance with a procedure still to be 
> settled and proposed by the DT).  In these cases we have a 
> CORE person and an IPR lawyer so maybe it's straightforward, 
> but maybe not...

Chuck: I have several concerns about asking applicants to specify which slot 
they want: 1) It would require us to more carefully define the slots to 
applicants so they could make an informed decision and I don't think there is 
enough time for to do that or to answer questions that would arrise; 2) some 
applicants will likely choose a slot or slots for which we don't think they 
fit; 3) if we did ask applicants to choose a slot or slots, I think SGs and the 
Council for the two open slots should still have the option to endorse a 
candidate for a slot they didn't choose, so what would the advantage be of 
asking candidates to choose? 4) in general, I think asking candidates to choose 
slots adds complexity that we do not have time for without commensorate value.

> 
> One other thought: would it perhaps make sense to post 
> complete applications to the web and then direct people to 
> them there, rather than emailing zip files around between the 
> secretariat, council, SG chairs, SG members, etc?  And beyond 
> the transactions costs issue, there's also a transparency 
> dimension-the apps should be accessible to the public, as 
> envisioned by ICANN's call.

Chuck: Good idea.


> 
> Best,
> 
> BIll
> 
> On Feb 15, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Forwarded From: Alice Jansen
> > 
> > 
> > Good morning,
> > 
> > In line with Chuck Gomes' request (see below), you will 
> find enclosed two endorsement applications for Affirmation of 
> Commitments reviews from candidates that indicated GNSO as their SO. 
> > 
> > Please note that although candidates have specified an 
> order of preference for the reviews to be performed, both 
> selected the 'Accountability and Transparency' review which 
> Mr. Gomes stresses in his email.
> > 
> > The compressed folders attached to this email contain the 
> applicants' CV and motivation letter.
> > 
> > The application deadline for the 'Accountability and 
> Transparency' review will expire on February the 22nd, 
> midnight UTC, but as you know the GNSO Council will have 
> until the 1st March to endorse the candidatures.
> > 
> > Best regards
> > 
> > Alice
> > 
> > Alice E. Jansen
> > --------------------------
> > ICANN
> > Assistant, Organizational Reviews
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > 
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 10 February, 2010 00:51
> > To: Marco Lorenzoni
> > Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: GNSO Request
> > 
> > Marco,
> > 
> > The GNSO requests that applications received from 
> volunteers for the Accountability and Transparency RT be 
> forwarded to the GNSO Secretariat as soon as possible after 
> receipt for distribution to the Council list, SGs and other 
> GNSO organization lists.  If applications are received prior 
> to finalization of the GNSO endorsement process on 18 
> February, it would be helpful if the applicants seeking GNSO 
> endorsement were informed that additional GNSO information 
> requirements will be identified on 18 February and will be 
> requested at that time along with the CV and motivation letter.
> > If there are any concerns with this, please let me know.
> > 
> > Thanks for your assistance.
> > 
> > Chuck Gomes
> > <Eric Brunner-Williams.zip><Victoria McEvedy.zip>
> 
> ***********************************************************
> 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
> ***********************************************************
> 
> 
> 
>