Re: [council] AW: [liaison6c] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
- To: "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] AW: [liaison6c] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
- From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:12:30 +0200
- Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE02175A41@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D343D494AB@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>,<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070358920C@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <SNT123-W511737036A44BD78875D70D3BB0@phx.gbl> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0703589218@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <001201cb24af$ac535410$04f9fc30$@com> <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE02175A41@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 16, 2010, at 10:26 AM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We have a very uncomfortable situation:
> - applications have to be accepted until 29 July (2 weeks extension) - to
> whatever SO/AC they are related. That's what yestarday's announcement update
> says. And any candidate can rely on this since it was community wide
I agree with Wolf. While I understand why Chuck's proposed approach might have
seemed like a way out of the timing bind, it doesn't work. People make
decisions based on official ICANN pronouncements, and I know of at least one
person who's preparing to apply but saw the message saying there's two more
weeks and hence decided not to rush in his app yesterday. There may be others
in the same boat. I don't think we can now pull the rug out from under them
and say, well ICANN says you have time, but the GNSO Council says you don't.
Moreover, the Council didn't discuss this and come to a decision, and I'm not
clear on whether it'd be within our remit to override ICANN's announcement in
the first place…?
> - I assume this happened in accordance with the selectors since they're the
> masters of the overall process.
> My personal opinion is that therefore the selectors should take the burden of
> this confusion and shift the announcement of the RT members. 1 week shift is
> a minimum, 2 weeks would be satisfactory.
This seems preferable, but if they cannot or will not, the other solution would
be for SG's to take less than 21 days to agree amongst themselves on
endorsements from the rather small applicant pools. In any event, applicants
from SGs that do not need this long should not be penalized by changes based on
that time frame.