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

Rosette, Kristina krosette at cov.com
Tue Feb 16 16:47:01 UTC 2010

Yes, it is my understanding that someone can be a member of more than one SG/constituency.


	From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:45 AM
	To: Rosette, Kristina
	Cc: Council GNSO
	Subject: Re: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -

	just want some clarifications:
	2010/2/16 Rosette, Kristina <krosette at cov.com>

		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".

	[Rafik] I guess that each applicant should decide which SG except if his/her case need more screening 

		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.

	[Rafik] are you sure that someone can be member of more than one SG/Constituency?

		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/20100216/9baa1727/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list