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,

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@verisign.com]

Sent: Wednesday, 10 February, 2010 00:51

To: Marco Lorenzoni

Cc: gnso-arr-dt@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@graduateinstitute.ch

www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html

***********************************************************