[council] Updated Job Description for discussion

[Gomes, Chuck]

Very well done in my opinion Avri.  
 
Regarding "Criteria that are especially important for 2008 ", we might
want to reword this something like this: "Criteria that are especially
important for the 2008 selection"; this change may be more for our
benefit than for the NomCom, but I think it is important for us to
realize the period when the nominee will begin service.  For example, as
I can tell you noted, Jon Bing's term will end next year and he has been
a very valuable contributer regarding 'knowledge of international law'
and 'intergovernmental expertise'; therefore, if Jon is not reselected,
we could have a gap in those areas.
 
Another possible area where we could have a gap is IDN technical
expertise.  We have primarily relied on Cary in this regard and he is no
longer on the Council.  Edmon also has good expertise in this area and
there may be others who can fill the gap here, but in the next few years
IDNs are going to be a very important topic.  So I would suggest that we
mark 'IDN expertise'.
 
One area that we seem to have missed is 'DNS Security'.  That is always
a need and with the incresing emphasis on DNSSEC, it might be useful to
not only add it to the list but to mark it.
 
Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 


________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
	Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:08 PM
	To: Council GNSO
	Subject: RE: [council] Updated Job Description for discussion
	
	
	Hi, 

	I have attached a revised version that tries to take into
account the comments made.  I have also responded inline below.  Changes
are contained in brackets.  


	On 20 nov 2007, at 16.34, Alan Greenberg wrote:





			I support all of Chucks comments, although one
conditionally.


				CG: I suggest that each year we should
identify specific skills from the
				above list that are of highest priority
for us for the timeframe
				involved.



	Makes sense.  I have added some words to this effect.  

	as for this year, which skill are most critical in this year's
selection.

	I have highlighted International legal knowledge,
intergovernmental experience and economics/market analysis


			Although I support highlighting the skills that
may be most needed, I think the overall statement is too highly weighted
on "skills". Less well defined qualities such as perspective may be of
value, and we should give the NomCom leeway in selecting people who can
help the GNSO. As currently stated, having one of the listed of
highlighted skills is mandatory for selection.


	I had already inserted a section on the role of the nomcom
appointee.  I have added some words on these intangible qualities.

	 {Appointees should be people who can help the GNSO council to
perform its duties; sometimes this may involve filling gaps in the skill
set, at other times it may involve addressing a diversity or other
demographic balance or may involve bringing a necessary perspective into
the council that is not already present.  Generally an appointee needs
to fulfill several of these needs at the same time.}




			Lastly, I would adjust the "at least 20 hours
per month" to reflect 3 ICANN meetings and possible other face-to-face
meetings. On a personal note, never having completed my speed-reading
course, 20 hours is way low at times when we are hit with large
documents to review.


	done.

	{Depending on work load, for example during  the weeks before
the 3 face to face meeting, this can sometimes escalate to as much as 20
hours per week or more.  The commitment for the 3 face to face meetings
generally run about 7 days with council members having sometimes
extensive responsibilities on most days. For those involved in Task
forces or Working Groups, there may occasionally be additional face to
face interim meetings} 




			Alan

			At 20/11/2007 10:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


				> {Role of the Nomcom Appointee.
				>
				> As discussed above the majority of the
councillors are
				> appointed by the constituencies and
represent those
				> constituencies in the council.  Nomcom
appointees, on the
				> other hand, are not the
representatives of any specific
				> group, though they may choose to
represent the interests of
				> groups that are not currently
represented in council.  Most
				> importantly  nomcom appointees should
be people chosen from
				> outside ICANN who bring a fresh
perspective into the council
				> and who accept the responsibility to
do their best to support
				> ICANN in its  mission and core
values.}

				CG: What is meant by "outside ICANN"?  I
think we should be more
				specific here so that we do not
eliminate candidates who have been
				active in ICANN, a quality that seems
desirable.  I am not suggesting
				that candidates must have been active in
ICANN, but I am suggesting that
				candidates who have been active not be
eliminated.




	I guess it should be more outside the GNSO.  Though I do think
that one
	of the jobs of Nomcom is to bring in 'outsiders'.  

	I have toned down the sentence to say:

	{Most importantly Nomcom appointees should be people chosen,
often from outside the GNSO constituencies and sometime from outside
ICANN, who bring a fresh perspective into the council and who accept the
responsibility to do their best to support ICANN in its  mission and
core values.}




				>
				> Additional GNSO criteria:
				>
				> During the Nom Com meeting with GNSO
Council at the ICANN
				> meeting in Lisbon, the Council
provided the following outline
				> of qualities the NomCom should
consider in GNSO candidates:
				>
				> Baseline Criteria for anyone selected
as a nomcom appointee:
				> {* Demonstrated experience working
effectively in
				> collaborative environments involving
diverse interests.}
				> * ability to chair a multi-stakeholder
group to reach consensus

				CG: Although this is a desirable
quality, I am not convinced that every
				Councilor must have chair qualities.  It
could be very useful to the
				Council to have certain areas of
expertise (e.g., IDNs,
				Intergovernmental Knowledge) even if the
person may not have chair
				qualities.



	I have toned this down to say:

	 Ability to chair {or otherwise assist} a multi-stakeholder
group in  reaching consensus

	Personally, I think this is important especially as we move to
the WG model and as council members start  sharing stewardship
responsibility for these WGs.


				>
				> {Variable Criteria that are useful to
the GNSO:


				...


				> - statistics and survey analysis
				> - project management and document
control processes

				CG: I suggest that each year we should
identify specific skills from the
				above list that are of highest priority
for us for the timeframe
				involved.

				>
				> {Additionally consideration may be
given to Nomcom appointees
				> who can help with the geographical or
gender balance on the
				> council as needed.}

				CG: I would suggest that we qualify this
to say something like the
				following: "Additionally consideration
may be given to Nomcom appointees
				who can help with the geographical or
gender balance on the council as
				needed, as long as other needed skill
sets are also demonstrated.  (In
				other words, a condidate should not be
nominated solely based on
				geographical or gener balance of the
Council.)"


	I have inserted the following:

	{Additionally consideration may be given to Nomcom appointees
who can help with the geographical or gender balance on the council as
needed, as long as other necessary attributes and skills are also
present.}

	
	
	a.
	
	
	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20071122/7d83eeda/attachment.html>