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

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

I think we need to be very clear and specific about the circumstances in which 
we'll over-ride a self-identification.  Otherwise, we'll make our own job more 
complicated and open ourselves to allegations of being arbitrary.
 
Caroline, what's your reaction to the idea of asking candidates to 
self-identify but then apply the "rules' I just suggested?  I could live with 
that, I think. 

________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:56 AM
        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
                                
***********************************************************