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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

I understand your point, Bill, but I think that, with one exception, allowing 
each applicant to decide which SG should consider his/her application will lead 
to gaming.  I think we should apply the following "rules".
 
1. Applicant stated in her/his application that she/he is member of an SG or 
constituency.
 
    One SG/constituency membership --> assign to that SG/constituency
    More than one --> applicant must designate which one.
 
2.  Applicant did not state in his/her application that she/he is member of an 
SG or constituency
 
    Councilor knowledge of membership in SG/constituency --> assign to that 
SG/constituency
    Councilor knowledge of membership in At Large --> assign to ALAC
    No membership in At Large or SG/constituency --> unaffiliated
 
________________________________

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 8:54 AM
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
                        

                        
***********************************************************