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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

just want some clarifications:

2010/2/16 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".
>
>
[Rafik] I guess that each applicant should decide which SG except if his/her
case need more screening

> 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.
>
[Rafik] are you sure that someone can be member of more than one
SG/Constituency?


>
> 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
>
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
>
>