ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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


I think I tend to agree with Bill here. I believe it would be preferable to ask 
candidates to state the SG with which they feel most affiliated, if any. We 
could make it clear that the ET/Council may in its deliberations come to the 
decision that this self-identification is not accurate and may re-allocate 
accordingly or indeed may consult further with the candidate (highly unlikely 
that we would have time but why not leave that last option open?).
 
As long as we (1) leave ourselves the flexibility to override a 
self-identification and/or re-allocate (2) leave open the possibility of 
further consultation with the candidate if necessary and (3) allow candidates 
the option of opting out of self-identification if they don't feel like they 
'belong' anywhere or if feel like they want to go for one of the open slots, I 
think it could assist our evaluation work. For any candidates that have stepped 
forward to date, I think a quick consultation with them could give us that 
information and we could have a quick conversation with any other candidate 
that steps forward if we don't want to go out with another information update 
to the community. Again, we make it clear that this self-identification is 
voluntary and serves as a starting point only but is in no way an indication of 
the end result.
 
Am not stuck-in-the-mud on this one but those are my thoughts at the minute.
 
Thanks.
 
Caroline.
 
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: 16 February 2010 13:54
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC 
Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -
 
Hi Chuck, 
 
On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:



        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?  
 
The process document reflects the state of the DT's discussion as of last 
Wednesday, at which point we'd sort of said ok we (DT/Council/ET) will figure 
out next how exactly the allocation of applications to slots will be done, and 
we're debating that in the DT now.  But here I'm trying to look at it from an 
applicant's point of view, and in that context I'm wondering if they wouldn't 
want more of a sense of what happens after they hit send. I know I've had 
communication with someone who's considering applying but would like more 
clarity.  Presumably we don't want to deter applications by fostering 
uncertainty, unless it's unavoidable.





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.
 
Asking them to indicate if they see themselves as and wish to be endorsed by 
any particular SG would make their desires clearer and help us avoid doing 
something they object to, unless it can't be helped.  Let's say someone works 
for an entity that's nominally in SG x but is really into the issues and 
orientation of SG y, with which s/he collaborates closely and might expect 
stronger support than from SG x.  Simply asking which if any SG are you seeking 
the endorsement of would provide a clarifying default.  But of course, if ET 
and/or Council decides the candidate really does fit SG y rather than x, or 
should/not be treated as an unaffiliated person, ok, we need not be bound by 
his/her indication.
 
I'm not going to hari kari if Council prefers to do it another way, but have 
come to think that it'd be nicer to candidates if we simply ask them if they 
have a preference, and that it might be useful in assessing applicants from 
folks with complex profiles.
 
Cheers,
 
BD
 
        
        
        
         
                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
                ***********************************************************
                 
 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>