<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - Self-Identification
Glen,
Please post the redline version of the revised action plan and process in place
of the original versions.
Thanks, Chuck
________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 2:06 AM
To: GNSO Council List; Glen de Saint Géry
Subject: Re: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process -
Self-Identification
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
***********************************************************
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|