[council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -

Tue Feb 16 14:51:09 UTC 2010

I think I tend to agree with Bill here. I believe it would be preferable to ask candidates to state the SG with which they feel most affiliated, if any. We could make it clear that the ET/Council may in its deliberations come to the decision that this self-identification is not accurate and may re-allocate accordingly or indeed may consult further with the candidate (highly unlikely that we would have time but why not leave that last option open?).

As long as we (1) leave ourselves the flexibility to override a self-identification and/or re-allocate (2) leave open the possibility of further consultation with the candidate if necessary and (3) allow candidates the option of opting out of self-identification if they don't feel like they 'belong' anywhere or if feel like they want to go for one of the open slots, I think it could assist our evaluation work. For any candidates that have stepped forward to date, I think a quick consultation with them could give us that information and we could have a quick conversation with any other candidate that steps forward if we don't want to go out with another information update to the community. Again, we make it clear that this self-identification is voluntary and serves as a starting point only but is in no way an indication of the end result.

Am not stuck-in-the-mud on this one but those are my thoughts at the minute.

Thanks.

Caroline.

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: 16 February 2010 13:54
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -

Hi Chuck, 

On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

	Either way, these early apps point to a tweak we should make 
	to the Proposed Process.  We don't presently say anything 
	about how apps will be allocated to the up to six slots.

Chuck: Not sure I agree here.  My understanding is the following: 1) We say that the SGs decide who, if any, will be allocated to four slots; 2)the Council will decide on the other two slots.  Do you think we need to be more explicit about that?  

The process document reflects the state of the DT's discussion as of last Wednesday, at which point we'd sort of said ok we (DT/Council/ET) will figure out next how exactly the allocation of applications to slots will be done, and we're debating that in the DT now.  But here I'm trying to look at it from an applicant's point of view, and in that context I'm wondering if they wouldn't want more of a sense of what happens after they hit send. I know I've had communication with someone who's considering applying but would like more clarity.  Presumably we don't want to deter applications by fostering uncertainty, unless it's unavoidable.

Perhaps we don't need to specify all the gory details, but at 
	a minimum it would be helpful if the text asked applicants to 
	say which SG, if any, they'd like to be nominated by.  (If 
	having been asked they still give no preference the 
	Evaluation Team or Council-TBD--would have to make a 
	determination in accordance with a procedure still to be 
	settled and proposed by the DT).  In these cases we have a 
	CORE person and an IPR lawyer so maybe it's straightforward, 
	but maybe not...

Chuck: I have several concerns about asking applicants to specify which slot they want: 1) It would require us to more carefully define the slots to applicants so they could make an informed decision and I don't think there is enough time for to do that or to answer questions that would arrise; 2) some applicants will likely choose a slot or slots for which we don't think they fit; 3) if we did ask applicants to choose a slot or slots, I think SGs and the Council for the two open slots should still have the option to endorse a candidate for a slot they didn't choose, so what would the advantage be of asking candidates to choose? 4) in general, I think asking candidates to choose slots adds complexity that we do not have time for without commensorate value.

Asking them to indicate if they see themselves as and wish to be endorsed by any particular SG would make their desires clearer and help us avoid doing something they object to, unless it can't be helped.  Let's say someone works for an entity that's nominally in SG x but is really into the issues and orientation of SG y, with which s/he collaborates closely and might expect stronger support than from SG x.  Simply asking which if any SG are you seeking the endorsement of would provide a clarifying default.  But of course, if ET and/or Council decides the candidate really does fit SG y rather than x, or should/not be treated as an unaffiliated person, ok, we need not be bound by his/her indication.

I'm not going to hari kari if Council prefers to do it another way, but have come to think that it'd be nicer to candidates if we simply ask them if they have a preference, and that it might be useful in assessing applicants from folks with complex profiles.

Cheers,

BD

		One other thought: would it perhaps make sense to post 
		complete applications to the web and then direct people to 
		them there, rather than emailing zip files around between the 
		secretariat, council, SG chairs, SG members, etc?  And beyond 
		the transactions costs issue, there's also a transparency 
		dimension-the apps should be accessible to the public, as 
		envisioned by ICANN's call.

	Chuck: Good idea.

		Best,

		BIll

		On Feb 15, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:

			Forwarded From: Alice Jansen

			Good morning,

			In line with Chuck Gomes' request (see below), you will 
		find enclosed two endorsement applications for Affirmation of 
		Commitments reviews from candidates that indicated GNSO as their SO. 

			Please note that although candidates have specified an 
		order of preference for the reviews to be performed, both 
		selected the 'Accountability and Transparency' review which 
		Mr. Gomes stresses in his email.

			The compressed folders attached to this email contain the 
		applicants' CV and motivation letter.

			The application deadline for the 'Accountability and 
		Transparency' review will expire on February the 22nd, 
		midnight UTC, but as you know the GNSO Council will have 
		until the 1st March to endorse the candidatures.

			Best regards

			Alice

			Alice E. Jansen
			--------------------------
			ICANN
			Assistant, Organizational Reviews

		----------------------------------------------------------------------
			----------

			From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
			Sent: Wednesday, 10 February, 2010 00:51
			To: Marco Lorenzoni
			Cc: gnso-arr-dt at icann.org
			Subject: GNSO Request

			Marco,

			The GNSO requests that applications received from 
		volunteers for the Accountability and Transparency RT be 
		forwarded to the GNSO Secretariat as soon as possible after 
		receipt for distribution to the Council list, SGs and other 
		GNSO organization lists.  If applications are received prior 
		to finalization of the GNSO endorsement process on 18 
		February, it would be helpful if the applicants seeking GNSO 
		endorsement were informed that additional GNSO information 
		requirements will be identified on 18 February and will be 
		requested at that time along with the CV and motivation letter.
			If there are any concerns with this, please let me know.

			Thanks for your assistance.

			Chuck Gomes
			<Eric Brunner-Williams.zip><Victoria McEvedy.zip>

		***********************************************************
		William J. Drake
		Senior Associate
		Centre for International Governance
		Graduate Institute of International and
		Development Studies
		Geneva, Switzerland
		william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
		www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
		***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100216/9718962b/attachment.html>