ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< 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 >>>