Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by greenriver.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id o1GF0bK0023359; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:00:37 -0800 Received: from greenriver.icann.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by greenriver.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1GF0bb8023360; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:00:37 -0800 Received: from pechora8.dc.icann.org (pechora8.icann.org [192.0.46.73]) by greenriver.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1GF0aC9023356 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:00:36 -0800 Received: from cbiexm01dc.cov.com ([172.17.8.60]) by CBIEXI02DC.cov.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:00:14 -0500 Received: from CBIEXI02DC.cov.com (dchost2.cov.com [216.200.93.137]) by pechora8.dc.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1GF0FjD020069 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:00:35 -0500 Received: (qmail 20858 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2010 15:01:39 -0000 Received: from greenriver.icann.org (208.77.188.30) by mx.corp.uolhostidc.com.br with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2010 15:01:39 -0000 Return-Path: From: "Rosette, Kristina" Sender: To: "Gomes, Chuck" , "Caroline Greer" , "William Drake" Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Glen_de_Saint_G=E9ry?= , "Council GNSO" In-Reply-To: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070312E4EF@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement - Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:00:14 -0200 Message-ID: <780A738C62DA734987AC5BD2A90961D10118BC2D@cbiexm01dc.cov.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01CAAF0E.6B492880" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcqvD7vTjkC8bxzIRdynLdCKXkhbsQAAy1WgAAFA9FAAAB11wA== x-ms-tnef-correlator: x-authentication-warning: greenriver.icann.org: majordomo set sender to owner-council@gnso.icann.org using -f x-ms-has-attach: x-brightmail-tracker: AAAAARLTv4M= x-greylist: Recipient e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (pechora8.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.73]); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:00:36 -0500 (EST) x-uh-uw: White - *@gnso.icann.org x-uh-rh: 5 x-uh-pt: 0 x-uh-as: 1 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 content-class: urn:content-classes:message x-originalarrivaltime: 16 Feb 2010 15:00:14.0902 (UTC) FILETIME=[BED27560:01CAAF18] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01CAAF0E.6B492880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. =20 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.=20 _____ =20 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 G=E9ry; 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? =20 Chuck _____ =20 From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@mtld.mobi]=20 Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:51 AM To: William Drake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Glen de Saint G=E9ry; 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?). =20 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=92t feel like they =91belong=92 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=92t = 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. =20 Am not stuck-in-the-mud on this one but those are my thoughts at the = minute. =20 Thanks. =20 Caroline. =20 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 G=E9ry; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for = AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement - =20 Hi Chuck,=20 =20 On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Either way, these early apps point to a tweak we should make=20 to the Proposed Process. We don't presently say anything=20 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? =20 =20 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=20 a minimum it would be helpful if the text asked applicants to=20 say which SG, if any, they'd like to be nominated by. (If=20 having been asked they still give no preference the=20 Evaluation Team or Council-TBD--would have to make a=20 determination in accordance with a procedure still to be=20 settled and proposed by the DT). In these cases we have a=20 CORE person and an IPR lawyer so maybe it's straightforward,=20 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. =20 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. =20 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. =20 Cheers, =20 BD =20 =20 One other thought: would it perhaps make sense to post=20 complete applications to the web and then direct people to=20 them there, rather than emailing zip files around between the=20 secretariat, council, SG chairs, SG members, etc? And beyond=20 the transactions costs issue, there's also a transparency=20 dimension-the apps should be accessible to the public, as=20 envisioned by ICANN's call. Chuck: Good idea. =20 Best, =20 BIll =20 On Feb 15, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Glen de Saint G=E9ry wrote: =20 =20 Forwarded From: Alice Jansen =20 =20 Good morning, =20 In line with Chuck Gomes' request (see below), you will=20 find enclosed two endorsement applications for Affirmation of=20 Commitments reviews from candidates that indicated GNSO as their SO.=20 =20 Please note that although candidates have specified an=20 order of preference for the reviews to be performed, both=20 selected the 'Accountability and Transparency' review which=20 Mr. Gomes stresses in his email. =20 The compressed folders attached to this email contain the=20 applicants' CV and motivation letter. =20 The application deadline for the 'Accountability and=20 Transparency' review will expire on February the 22nd,=20 midnight UTC, but as you know the GNSO Council will have=20 until the 1st March to endorse the candidatures. =20 Best regards =20 Alice =20 Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational Reviews =20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- =20 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 =20 Marco, =20 The GNSO requests that applications received from=20 volunteers for the Accountability and Transparency RT be=20 forwarded to the GNSO Secretariat as soon as possible after=20 receipt for distribution to the Council list, SGs and other=20 GNSO organization lists. If applications are received prior=20 to finalization of the GNSO endorsement process on 18=20 February, it would be helpful if the applicants seeking GNSO=20 endorsement were informed that additional GNSO information=20 requirements will be identified on 18 February and will be=20 requested at that time along with the CV and motivation letter. If there are any concerns with this, please let me know. =20 Thanks for your assistance. =20 Chuck Gomes =20 *********************************************************** 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 *********************************************************** =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01CAAF0E.6B492880 Content-Type: text/html; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CAAF18.BEA976A2"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think we need to be very clear and specific = about the=20 circumstances in which we'll over-ride a self-identification.  = Otherwise,=20 we'll make our own job more complicated and open ourselves to = allegations of=20 being arbitrary.
 
Caroline, what's your reaction to the idea of = asking=20 candidates to self-identify but then apply the "rules' I just = suggested?  I=20 could live with that, I think.

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org = [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes,=20 Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:56 AM
To: = Caroline Greer; William Drake
Cc: Glen de Saint G=E9ry; = Council=20 GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2=20 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -

I still favor not asking for volunteers = to identify=20 an SG or open slot but could live with it with the caveats = Caroline=20 suggests.  Caroline or Bill, would one of you be willing to = propose and=20 amendment to the plan in that regard that the Council could=20 consider?
 
Chuck

From: Caroline Greer=20 [mailto:cgreer@mtld.mobi]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, = 2010 9:51=20 AM
To: William Drake; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Glen de = Saint=20 G=E9ry; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] FW: = Organizational=20 Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement=20 -

I=20 think I tend to agree with Bill here. I believe it would be = preferable to=20 ask candidates to state the SG with which they feel most affiliated, = if = any.=20 We could make it clear that the ET/Council may in its deliberations = come to=20 the decision that this self-identification is not accurate and may=20 re-allocate accordingly or indeed may consult further with the = candidate=20 (highly unlikely that we would have time but why not leave that last = option=20 open?).

 

As=20 long as we (1) leave ourselves the flexibility to override a=20 self-identification and/or re-allocate (2) leave open the = possibility of=20 further consultation with the candidate if necessary and (3) allow=20 candidates the option of opting out of self-identification if they = don=92t=20 feel like they =91belong=92 anywhere or if feel like they want to go = for one of=20 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=20 with them could give us that information and we could have a quick=20 conversation with any other candidate that steps forward if we = don=92t want to=20 go out with another information update to the community. Again, we = make it=20 clear that this self-identification is voluntary and serves as a = starting=20 point only but is in no way an indication of the end=20 result.

 

Am=20 not stuck-in-the-mud on this one but those are my thoughts at the=20 minute.

 

Thanks.

 

Caroline.

 

From:=20 owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] = On Behalf Of William = Drake
Sent: 16 February 2010=20 13:54
To: Gomes,=20 Chuck
Cc: Glen de = Saint=20 G=E9ry; Council GNSO
Subject:=20 Re: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC = Reviews -=20 GNSO Endorsement -

 

Hi=20 Chuck, 

 

On Feb=20 16, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck = wrote:

Either=20 way, these early apps point to a tweak we should make=20

to the=20 Proposed Process.  We don't presently say anything=20

about=20 how apps will be allocated to the up to six=20 slots.


Chuck:=20 Not sure I agree here.  My understanding is the following: 1) = We say=20 that the SGs decide who, if any, will be allocated to four slots; = 2)the=20 Council will decide on the other two slots.  Do you think we = need to be=20 more explicit about that?  

 

The=20 process document reflects the state of the DT's discussion as of = last=20 Wednesday, at which point we'd sort of said ok we (DT/Council/ET) = will=20 figure out next how exactly the allocation of applications to slots = will be=20 done, and we're debating that in the DT now.  But here I'm = trying to=20 look at it from an applicant's point of view, and in that context = I'm=20 wondering if they wouldn't want more of a sense of what happens = after they=20 hit send. I know I've had communication with someone who's = considering=20 applying but would like more clarity.  Presumably we don't want = to=20 deter applications by fostering uncertainty, unless it's = unavoidable.

Perhaps=20 we don't need to specify all the gory details, but at=20

a=20 minimum it would be helpful if the text asked applicants to=20

say=20 which SG, if any, they'd like to be nominated by.  (If=20

having=20 been asked they still give no preference the=20

Evaluation=20 Team or Council-TBD--would have to make a=20

determination=20 in accordance with a procedure still to be=20

settled=20 and proposed by the DT).  In these cases we have a=20

CORE=20 person and an IPR lawyer so maybe it's straightforward,=20

but=20 maybe not...


Chuck:=20 I have several concerns about asking applicants to specify which = slot they=20 want: 1) It would require us to more carefully define the slots to=20 applicants so they could make an informed decision and I don't think = there=20 is enough time for to do that or to answer questions that would = arrise; 2)=20 some applicants will likely choose a slot or slots for which we = don't think=20 they fit; 3) if we did ask applicants to choose a slot or slots, I = think SGs=20 and the Council for the two open slots should still have the option = to=20 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=20 candidates to choose slots adds complexity that we do not have time = for=20 without commensorate value.

 

Asking=20 them to indicate if they see themselves as and wish to be endorsed = by any=20 particular SG would make their desires clearer and help us avoid = doing=20 something they object to, unless it can't be helped.  Let's say = someone=20 works for an entity that's nominally in SG x but is really into the = issues=20 and orientation of SG y, with which s/he collaborates = closely and=20 might expect stronger support than from SG x.  Simply asking = which if=20 any SG are you seeking the endorsement of would provide a clarifying = default.  But of course, if ET and/or Council decides the=20 candidate really does fit SG y rather than x, or should/not be = treated as an=20 unaffiliated person, ok, we need not be bound by his/her=20 indication.

 

I'm not=20 going to hari kari if Council prefers to do it another way, but have = come to=20 think that it'd be nicer to candidates if we simply ask them if they = have a=20 preference, and that it might be useful in assessing applicants from = folks=20 with complex profiles.

 

Cheers,

 

BD

 

 

One=20 other thought: would it perhaps make sense to post=20

complete=20 applications to the web and then direct people to=20

them=20 there, rather than emailing zip files around between the=20

secretariat,=20 council, SG chairs, SG members, etc?  And beyond=20

the=20 transactions costs issue, there's also a transparency=20

dimension-the=20 apps should be accessible to the public, as=20

envisioned=20 by ICANN's call.


Chuck:=20 Good idea.


 

Best,

 

BIll

 

On=20 Feb 15, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Glen de Saint G=E9ry=20 wrote:

 

 

Forwarded=20 From: Alice = Jansen

 

 

Good=20 = morning,

 

In=20 line with Chuck Gomes' request (see below), you will=20

find=20 enclosed two endorsement applications for Affirmation of=20

Commitments=20 reviews from candidates that indicated GNSO as their SO.=20

 

Please=20 note that although candidates have specified an=20

order=20 of preference for the reviews to be performed, both=20

selected=20 the 'Accountability and Transparency' review which=20

Mr.=20 Gomes stresses in his = email.

 

The=20 compressed folders attached to this email contain the=20

applicants'=20 CV and motivation = letter.

 

The=20 application deadline for the 'Accountability and=20

Transparency'=20 review will expire on February the 22nd,=20

midnight=20 UTC, but as you know the GNSO Council will have=20

until=20 the 1st March to endorse the=20 candidatures.

 

Best=20 regards

 

Alice

 

Alice=20 E. = Jansen

--------------------------

ICANN

Assistant,=20 Organizational=20 Reviews

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------= -----

----------

=

 

From:=20 Gomes, Chuck=20 = [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]

Sent:=20 Wednesday, 10 February, 2010=20 00:51

To:=20 Marco = Lorenzoni

Cc:=20 gnso-arr-dt@icann.org

Subject:=20 GNSO = Request

 

Marco,

 

The=20 GNSO requests that applications received from=20

volunteers=20 for the Accountability and Transparency RT be=20

forwarded=20 to the GNSO Secretariat as soon as possible after=20

receipt=20 for distribution to the Council list, SGs and other=20

GNSO=20 organization lists.  If applications are received prior=20

to=20 finalization of the GNSO endorsement process on 18=20

February,=20 it would be helpful if the applicants seeking GNSO=20

endorsement=20 were informed that additional GNSO information=20

requirements=20 will be identified on 18 February and will be=20

requested=20 at that time along with the CV and motivation=20 letter.

If=20 there are any concerns with this, please let me=20 know.

 

Thanks=20 for your=20 assistance.

 

Chuck=20 Gomes

<Eric=20 Brunner-Williams.zip><Victoria=20 = McEvedy.zip>

 

***********************************************************<= /o:p>

William=20 J. Drake

Senior=20 Associate

Centre=20 for International = Governance

Graduate=20 Institute of International = and

Development=20 Studies

Geneva,=20 Switzerland

william.drake@graduate= institute.ch

www.graduateinsti= tute.ch/cig/drake.html

***********************************************************<= /o:p>

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01CAAF0E.6B492880--