ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

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


Sure, I am offline for an hour now but I can work with Bill after that on an 
amendment. Sound ok Bill?
 
Caroline.
 
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 16 February 2010 14:56
To: Caroline Greer; William Drake
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC 
Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -
 
I still favor not asking for volunteers to identify an SG or open slot but 
could live with it with the caveats Caroline suggests.  Caroline or Bill, would 
one of you be willing to propose and amendment to the plan in that regard that 
the Council could consider?
 
Chuck
         
        
________________________________

        From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:51 AM
        To: William Drake; Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO
        Subject: 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 >>>