<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -
That sounds ok to me Kristina and helps put a framework around it (and I saw
your later clarification to Chuck too).
Caroline.
From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 16 February 2010 15:00
To: Gomes, Chuck; 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 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
***********************************************************
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|