Re: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - Self-Identification

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks for the friendly tweaks, I suspect applicants will appreciate the added 
bit of clarity.  

BTW, ICANN's call says "Interested individuals are asked to apply through their 
Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees by sending a short CV (maximum 
three pages) and a one-page motivation letter to the following email address: 
rtcandidatures@xxxxxxxxx"  (I assume that's Alice and Marco?)  This is a bit 
confusing since if someone were applying "through" their SO it'd presumably go 
to gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, as I gather Eric and Victoria did.  Hence, 
our earlier version said send it to the GNSO secretariat.  That's now been 
changed to follow ICANN's instructions.  Since Marco says he doesn't have the 
bandwidth to gather and place all apps via all SO/ACs on the web, it's not 
entirely obvious what purpose is served by the extra step, but given the very 
short turnaround time hopefully the apps will be quickly passed to Glen for 
posting and notification of the Council and relevant SG chairs.

Cheers,

Bill

On Feb 17, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I accepted all the formatting changes in both of these documents to make them 
> cleaner and then made some additional deletions and edits that are shown in 
> the attached two files.  Caroline, and others, please let me know if you are 
> okay with the edits.
>  
> Note that I avoided the word "assign" because I thought that that implied 
> something different that what I think we mean.  Also, I think that the 
> applications need to be sent to ICANN.  We could also ask them to be sent to 
> Glen directly but I am afraid that might cause some confusion.  It would be 
> bad if they were sent to the GNSO but not to ICANN and were consequently not 
> accepted.
>  
> Chuck
> 
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Caroline Greer
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:46 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry
> Subject: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - 
> Self-Identification
> 
> All,
>  
> Revised Action Plan and Proposed Process for Endorsement now attached for 
> your review. Edits shown in mark up.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Caroline.
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: 16 February 2010 18:47
> To: Rosette, Kristina
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC 
> Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -
>  
> Hi
>  
> My apologies to all for dragging DT arcana onto the Council list but as we 
> have to vote on the motion in 48 hours any guidance to applicants or other 
> externally oriented additions/clarifications we may want need to get decided. 
>   Other internal operational bits the ET can figure out once the applicant 
> pool is clear and from that hopefully we can build toward a standing system 
> for deal with future RT rounds.
>  
> On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> 
> 
> 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. 
>  
> Yes, in principle there could be several possibilities for gaming, 
> particularly vis the two voted slots, and to the extent that we can address 
> that ex ante it's worth doing.  Otherwise we can cross bridges if we come to 
> them as long as we don't change things in ways that may negatively impact 
> candidates.  
> 
> 
> 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
>  
> This is pretty much how I imagined it working.  Although of course a) one can 
> have feet in both an SG and ALAC, in which case the former would be the 
> decider if they apply via us, and b) I'd think we'd need agreement from ALAC, 
> which has its own process, rather than unilaterally assigning people to 
> them...
>  
> Caroline and I are batting around formulations and I imagine she'll be back 
> to the list shortly with something for consideration, I'm signing off for the 
> day.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Bill
>  
> <AoC Proposed Process for GNSO Endorsement of Nominees to the AT RT with 
> Gomes edits.docx><AoC DT Action Plan for Development of GNSO Endorsement of 
> RT Volunteers with Gomes edits.docx>

***********************************************************
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
***********************************************************