<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">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" color="#000000"><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><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">***********************************************************<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">William J. Drake<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Senior Associate<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Centre for International Governance<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Graduate Institute of International and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Development Studies<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Geneva, Switzerland<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html">www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">***********************************************************<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></div></blockquote></div> </div></body></html>