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

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Tue Feb 16 15:04:06 UTC 2010

I am fine with asking candidates to state any SGs or Constituencies in which they have membership, but I don't see why we need to assign candidates to SG's or constituencies.  Certainly, if SG's want to do that, they may do so.


	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
	Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:56 AM
	To: Council GNSO
	Subject: RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -
	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.  I think we should apply the following "rules".
	1. Applicant stated in her/his application that she/he is member of an SG or constituency.
	    One SG/constituency membership --> assign to that SG/constituency
	    More than one --> applicant must designate which one.
	2.  Applicant did not state in his/her application that she/he is member of an SG or constituency
	    Councilor knowledge of membership in SG/constituency --> assign to that SG/constituency
	    Councilor knowledge of membership in At Large --> assign to ALAC
	    No membership in At Large or SG/constituency --> unaffiliated

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
	Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 8:54 AM
	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.




				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.



				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 E. Jansen



					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


					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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100216/49c4f285/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list