<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="898073314-16022010">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. </span></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>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. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="898073314-16022010">I think we should apply the
following "rules".</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="898073314-16022010"></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="898073314-16022010">1. Applicant stated in her/his application that
she/he is member of an SG or constituency.</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="898073314-16022010"></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="898073314-16022010"> One SG/constituency membership
--> assign to that SG/constituency</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="898073314-16022010"> More than one --> applicant must
designate which one.</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="898073314-16022010"></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="898073314-16022010">2. Applicant did not state in his/her application
that she/he is member of an SG or constituency</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="898073314-16022010"></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="898073314-16022010"> Councilor knowledge of
membership in SG/constituency --> assign to that
SG/constituency</span></font></div></div></blockquote></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="898073314-16022010"> Councilor knowledge of membership in
At Large --> assign to ALAC</span></font></div></div></blockquote></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="898073314-16022010"> No membership in At Large or
SG/constituency --> unaffiliated</span></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>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...</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<div dir="ltr" align="left">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>William
Drake<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 16, 2010 8:54 AM<br><b>To:</b> Gomes,
Chuck<br><b>Cc:</b> Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO<br><b>Subject:</b> Re:
[council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO
Endorsement -<br></font><br></div>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div></div>Hi Chuck,
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:</div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">Either way, these early apps point to a tweak we
should make <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">to the Proposed Process. We don't presently
say anything <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">about how apps will be allocated to the up to six
slots.<br></blockquote><br>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?
<br></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div>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.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">Perhaps we don't need to specify all the gory
details, but at <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">a minimum it would be helpful if the text asked
applicants to <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">say which SG, if any, they'd like to be nominated
by. (If <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">having been asked they still give no preference
the <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Evaluation Team or Council-TBD--would have to make
a <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">determination in accordance with a procedure still
to be <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">settled and proposed by the DT). In these
cases we have a <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">CORE person and an IPR lawyer so maybe it's
straightforward, <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">but maybe not...<br></blockquote><br>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.<br></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>BD</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><font class="Apple-style-span"><br></font>
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">One other thought: would it perhaps make sense to
post <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">complete applications to the web and then direct
people to <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">them there, rather than emailing zip files around
between the <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">secretariat, council, SG chairs, SG members, etc?
And beyond <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">the transactions costs issue, there's also a
transparency <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">dimension-the apps should be accessible to the
public, as <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">envisioned by ICANN's
call.<br></blockquote><br>Chuck: Good idea.<br><br><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Best,<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">BIll<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">On Feb 15, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Glen de Saint Géry
wrote:<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Forwarded From: Alice
Jansen<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Good morning,<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">In line with Chuck Gomes' request (see below),
you will <br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">find enclosed two endorsement applications for
Affirmation of <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Commitments reviews from candidates that indicated
GNSO as their SO. <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Please note that although candidates have
specified an <br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">order of preference for the reviews to be
performed, both <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">selected the 'Accountability and Transparency'
review which <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Mr. Gomes stresses in his email.<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">The compressed folders attached to this email
contain the <br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">applicants' CV and motivation
letter.<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">The application deadline for the 'Accountability
and <br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Transparency' review will expire on February the
22nd, <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">midnight UTC, but as you know the GNSO Council
will have <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">until the 1st March to endorse the
candidatures.<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Best regards<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Alice<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Alice E. Jansen<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">--------------------------<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">ICANN<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Assistant, Organizational
Reviews<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">----------------------------------------------------------------------<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">----------<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">From: Gomes, Chuck
[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Sent: Wednesday, 10 February, 2010
00:51<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">To: Marco Lorenzoni<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Cc: <a href="mailto:gnso-arr-dt@icann.org">gnso-arr-dt@icann.org</a><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Subject: GNSO Request<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Marco,<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">The GNSO requests that applications received
from <br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">volunteers for the Accountability and Transparency
RT be <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">forwarded to the GNSO Secretariat as soon as
possible after <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">receipt for distribution to the Council list, SGs
and other <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">GNSO organization lists. If applications are
received prior <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">to finalization of the GNSO endorsement process on
18 <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">February, it would be helpful if the applicants
seeking GNSO <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">endorsement were informed that additional GNSO
information <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">requirements will be identified on 18 February and
will be <br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">requested at that time along with the CV and
motivation letter.<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">If there are any concerns with this, please let
me know.<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Thanks for your
assistance.<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Chuck Gomes<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><Eric Brunner-Williams.zip><Victoria
McEvedy.zip><br></blockquote></blockquote>
</div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">***********************************************************<br>William J. Drake<br>Senior Associate<br>Centre for International Governance<br>Graduate Institute of International and<br> Development Studies<br>Geneva, Switzerland<br><a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a><br>www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<br>***********************************************************<br><br></span>
</div>
<br></div></body></html>