<<<
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
>>>
|