Please see my comments below. Glen - Can you follow-up on Bill's last suggestion? Chuck

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:20 AM To: Glen de Saint Géry Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -

Hi Glen,

Thanks for passing these along. Have they been told that they'll need to resubmit applications after the 18th that address the additional GNSO requirements (assuming Council approve those)?

Chuck: As I am sure everyone saw, Glen confirmed that the applicants were informed.

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?

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.

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

I think I tend to agree with Bill here. I believe it would be preferable to ask candidates to state the SG with which they feel most affiliated, if any. We could make it clear that the ET/Council may in its deliberations come to the decision that this self-identification is not accurate and may re-allocate accordingly or indeed may consult further with the candidate (highly unlikely that we would have time but why not leave that last option open?). As long as we (1) leave ourselves the flexibility to override a self-identification and/or re-allocate (2) leave open the possibility of further consultation with the candidate if necessary and (3) allow candidates the option of opting out of self-identification if they don't feel like they 'belong' anywhere or if feel like they want to go for one of the open slots, I think it could assist our evaluation work. For any candidates that have stepped forward to date, I think a quick consultation with them could give us that information and we could have a quick conversation with any other candidate that steps forward if we don't want to go out with another information update to the community. Again, we make it clear that this self-identification is voluntary and serves as a starting point only but is in no way an indication of the end result. Am not stuck-in-the-mud on this one but those are my thoughts at the minute. Thanks. Caroline. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: 16 February 2010 13:54 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@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 ***********************************************************

Sure, I am offline for an hour now but I can work with Bill after that on an amendment. Sound ok Bill? Caroline. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 16 February 2010 14:56 To: Caroline Greer; William Drake Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement - I still favor not asking for volunteers to identify an SG or open slot but could live with it with the caveats Caroline suggests. Caroline or Bill, would one of you be willing to propose and amendment to the plan in that regard that the Council could consider? Chuck ________________________________ From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@mtld.mobi] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:51 AM To: William Drake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement - I think I tend to agree with Bill here. I believe it would be preferable to ask candidates to state the SG with which they feel most affiliated, if any. We could make it clear that the ET/Council may in its deliberations come to the decision that this self-identification is not accurate and may re-allocate accordingly or indeed may consult further with the candidate (highly unlikely that we would have time but why not leave that last option open?). As long as we (1) leave ourselves the flexibility to override a self-identification and/or re-allocate (2) leave open the possibility of further consultation with the candidate if necessary and (3) allow candidates the option of opting out of self-identification if they don't feel like they 'belong' anywhere or if feel like they want to go for one of the open slots, I think it could assist our evaluation work. For any candidates that have stepped forward to date, I think a quick consultation with them could give us that information and we could have a quick conversation with any other candidate that steps forward if we don't want to go out with another information update to the community. Again, we make it clear that this self-identification is voluntary and serves as a starting point only but is in no way an indication of the end result. Am not stuck-in-the-mud on this one but those are my thoughts at the minute. Thanks. Caroline. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: 16 February 2010 13:54 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@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 ***********************************************************

That sounds ok to me Kristina and helps put a framework around it (and I saw your later clarification to Chuck too). Caroline. From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Sent: 16 February 2010 15:00 To: Gomes, Chuck; Caroline Greer; William Drake Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement - I think we need to be very clear and specific about the circumstances in which we'll over-ride a self-identification. Otherwise, we'll make our own job more complicated and open ourselves to allegations of being arbitrary. Caroline, what's your reaction to the idea of asking candidates to self-identify but then apply the "rules' I just suggested? I could live with that, I think. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:56 AM To: Caroline Greer; William Drake Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement - I still favor not asking for volunteers to identify an SG or open slot but could live with it with the caveats Caroline suggests. Caroline or Bill, would one of you be willing to propose and amendment to the plan in that regard that the Council could consider? Chuck ________________________________ From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@mtld.mobi] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:51 AM To: William Drake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement - I think I tend to agree with Bill here. I believe it would be preferable to ask candidates to state the SG with which they feel most affiliated, if any. We could make it clear that the ET/Council may in its deliberations come to the decision that this self-identification is not accurate and may re-allocate accordingly or indeed may consult further with the candidate (highly unlikely that we would have time but why not leave that last option open?). As long as we (1) leave ourselves the flexibility to override a self-identification and/or re-allocate (2) leave open the possibility of further consultation with the candidate if necessary and (3) allow candidates the option of opting out of self-identification if they don't feel like they 'belong' anywhere or if feel like they want to go for one of the open slots, I think it could assist our evaluation work. For any candidates that have stepped forward to date, I think a quick consultation with them could give us that information and we could have a quick conversation with any other candidate that steps forward if we don't want to go out with another information update to the community. Again, we make it clear that this self-identification is voluntary and serves as a starting point only but is in no way an indication of the end result. Am not stuck-in-the-mud on this one but those are my thoughts at the minute. Thanks. Caroline. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: 16 February 2010 13:54 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@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 ***********************************************************

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. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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@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 ***********************************************************

Thanks Kristina. That makes sense. Chuck ________________________________ From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:07 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement - I meant "assign" as opposed to that person being considered for the "unaffiliated" slot. ________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:04 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement - 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. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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@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 ***********************************************************

Yes, it is my understanding that someone can be a member of more than one SG/constituency. ________________________________ From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@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 - Hi, just want some clarifications: 2010/2/16 Rosette, Kristina <krosette@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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@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 ***********************************************************

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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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

These edits look good to me, many thanks Chuck. Caroline. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 16 February 2010 23:15 To: Caroline Greer; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - Self-Identification 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:46 PM To: council@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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

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@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@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:46 PM To: council@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************

I'm okay with the edited text. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Februar 2010 00:15 An: Caroline Greer; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Betreff: RE: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - Self-Identification 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:46 PM To: council@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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