<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -
- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:07:24 -0500
- In-reply-to: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070312E4F6@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcqvD2r2Tf9SMZQySzKtB8LtALWO8wABYi4wAAEIOQAAACc3EA==
- Thread-topic: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -
I meant "assign" as opposed to that person being considered for the
"unaffiliated" slot.
________________________________
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:04 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for
AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -
I am fine with asking candidates to state any SGs or Constituencies in
which they have membership, but I don't see why we need to assign candidates to
SG's or constituencies. Certainly, if SG's want to do that, they may do so.
Chuck
________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:56 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2
Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -
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
***********************************************************
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|