[council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - Self-Identification

[Gomes, Chuck]

Glen,
 
Please post the redline version of the revised action plan and process in place of the original versions.
 
Thanks, Chuck


________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
	Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 2:06 AM
	To: GNSO Council List; Glen de Saint Géry
	Subject: Re: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - Self-Identification
	
	
	Hi, 

	Thanks for the friendly tweaks, I suspect applicants will appreciate the added bit of clarity.  

	BTW, ICANN's call says "Interested individuals are asked to apply through their Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees by sending a short CV (maximum three pages) and a one-page motivation letter to the following email address: rtcandidatures at icann.org"  (I assume that's Alice and Marco?)  This is a bit confusing since if someone were applying "through" their SO it'd presumably go to gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org, as I gather Eric and Victoria did.  Hence, our earlier version said send it to the GNSO secretariat.  That's now been changed to follow ICANN's instructions.  Since Marco says he doesn't have the bandwidth to gather and place all apps via all SO/ACs on the web, it's not entirely obvious what purpose is served by the extra step, but given the very short turnaround time hopefully the apps will be quickly passed to Glen for posting and notification of the Council and relevant SG chairs.

	Cheers,

	Bill

	On Feb 17, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


		I accepted all the formatting changes in both of these documents to make them cleaner and then made some additional deletions and edits that are shown in the attached two files.  Caroline, and others, please let me know if you are okay with the edits.
		 
		Note that I avoided the word "assign" because I thought that that implied something different that what I think we mean.  Also, I think that the applications need to be sent to ICANN.  We could also ask them to be sent to Glen directly but I am afraid that might cause some confusion.  It would be bad if they were sent to the GNSO but not to ICANN and were consequently not accepted.
		 
		Chuck


________________________________

			From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer
			Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:46 PM
			To: council at gnso.icann.org
			Cc: Glen de Saint Géry
			Subject: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - Self-Identification
			
			
			All,
			
			Revised Action Plan and Proposed Process for Endorsement now attached for your review. Edits shown in mark up.
			
			Thanks.
			
			Kind regards,
			
			Caroline.
			
			From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
			Sent: 16 February 2010 18:47
			To: Rosette, Kristina
			Cc: Council GNSO
			Subject: Re: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -
			
			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
			

		<AoC Proposed Process for GNSO Endorsement of Nominees to the AT RT with Gomes edits.docx><AoC DT Action Plan for Development of GNSO Endorsement of RT Volunteers with Gomes edits.docx>


	***********************************************************
	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/20100217/a9200c96/attachment.html>