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

Tue Feb 16 18:46:41 UTC 2010

Hi

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.

On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> 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. 

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.  

> 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

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...

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.

Best,

Bill

> 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.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BD
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> BIll
>>> 
>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> Alice E. Jansen
>>>> --------------------------
>>>> ICANN
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> Marco,
>>>> 
>>>> 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
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100216/2259f48b/attachment.html>