[council] RE: Deadline for putting forward candidates for Review Teams

[Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,
Oh well, the straightforward answer is that the overall time plan remains 
unchanged - to have the list of SO/AC endorsed candidates ready by the end of 
August, in order to enable selection and then launch of the RTs before October 
(as is the formal requirement). Hence my call to the SOAC list for any 
objections within a 24 hour window before accepting Heather's/GAC late request 
for an extension. None such was received and the extension granted.
Now, seemingly the SOAC list didn't work and you didn't receive that message - 
and we're in a squeeze as regards your 45 days, should there be late 
applications requesting GNSO endorsement. While Alice and I promise to continue 
forwarding all GNSO applications to you immediately upon receipt, I can only 
ask you for your best effort in meeting the overall timeline as above.
Very best regards
Olof


________________________________
From: Gomes, Chuck [cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:41 PM
To: Olof Nordling; Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO
Cc: Alice Jansen
Subject: RE: Deadline for putting forward candidates for Review Teams

Olof,

Am I correct in assuming that the GNSO will still have 45 days after 29 July to 
complete its endorsements?

Chuck

From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:34 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO
Cc: Alice Jansen
Subject: FW: Deadline for putting forward candidates for Review Teams

Dear Chuck,
Forwarded copy of email below, as promised. Hope you did receive it.
Best regards
Olof
________________________________
From: Olof Nordling
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:17 PM
To: Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx; owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx; Alice Jansen
Cc: Rod Beckstrom; Donna Austin; Massimiliano Minisci
Subject: RE: Deadline for putting forward candidates for Review Teams
Dear all,
No objections were raised against extending the deadline to 29 July 2010 in 
line with my email below. Accordingly, please be informed that the extension 
will be announced shortly on the ICANN web site.
Very best regards
Olof

From: Olof Nordling
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:57 AM
To: 'Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx'; owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx; Alice Jansen
Cc: Rod Beckstrom; Donna Austin; Massimiliano Minisci
Subject: RE: Deadline for putting forward candidates for Review Teams

Dear Heather and all,
Thanks for the suggestion! It seems quite appropriate to extend the deadline, 
also in view of the rather limited  number of candidates registered so far.

Unless I receive any objection to it before tomorrow, 15 July at 12.00 (noon) 
UTC, we will post an extension of the deadline to 29 July.

Very best regards
Olof
----------------
Olof Nordling
Director, Services Relations
Branch Manager, ICANN Brussels office
ICANN
6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel.: +32.2.234 7872
Mobile: +32.475.420805
Fax: +32.2.234 7848
E-mail: olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>



From: Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx [mailto:Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:33 PM
To: owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx; Olof Nordling; Alice Jansen
Cc: Rod Beckstrom; Donna Austin; Massimiliano Minisci
Subject: Deadline for putting forward candidates for Review Teams


Dear all,

I have received some feedback from the GAC regarding the July 15th deadline for 
putting forward candidates to the review teams on WHOIS and DNS security and 
would like to propose an extension of 11 days (July 26) or 2 weeks (July 29).  
At this stage it seems unlikely that there will be any "GAC" candidates 
proposed by the 15th.

Hopefully, an extended deadline would still allow the ICANN constituencies 
sufficient time to review the list of candidates and determine who to endorse 
before the Selectors make the final selections at the beginning of September.  
This new deadline would also allow the Selectors to finalize the composition of 
the RTs before the nominations deadline passes -- which would be preferable 
from a process point of view.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Heather







[cid:image001.gif@01CB242B.C47EF780]