Hi all, ICANN's Call for Applicants states that interested applicants are to apply through either their Supporting Organization (SO) or Advisory Committee (AC). In the case of NCUC/NCSG, that means applications should be channeled through NCSG rather than directly to ICANN staff. The GNSO's selection process depends on each SG having applicants/nominees, and is currently as described by Bill in his email (below). A quick and easy way to do this is to say so either on this listserv or by contacting the Executive Committee and/or the GNSO Councillors (me, Bill, Wendy, Rafik, Rosemary and Debbie). The Call for Applicants, including the basic documentation required, is here: http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicants-11jan10-en.pdf As Bill notes, the GNSO is likely to require other supporting statements/documentation - we'll know more after the Council meeting on Feb 18th. If the Councillors and our Executive Committee can have a sense of how many and who are interested before that date, however, that would be great. So, bottom line (for now) - indications of interest to be made within our SG by Feb 18th; start getting the required documentation ready now; and be prepared for a flurry of extra requirements between Feb 18th-22nd. Thanks, Mary >>> Fouad Bajwa <[log in to unmask]> 02/13/10 5:59 PM >>> What would be required from us that would like to participate? A EOI and a CV? On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 3:28 PM, William Drake < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Robin > > On Feb 12, 2010, at 10:44 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > > > On how to select the NCSG candidates (at least 1 primary and 2 alternates?) > Given the practical realities of holding a global online election in less > than a week, a better option for selecting these candidates may be for the > NCSG/NCUC Executive Committees and GNSO Councilors to appoint the candidates > to the GNSO based upon who applies for the Review Team via NCSG. > > Do we know by when NCSG candidates would need to throw their hat in the > ring? > > > Again, applications are due 22 February at ICANN, per the call for apps, > and people who want to be nominated by the GNSO need to address the > additional info requests set out in the process Council will vote on the > 18th. > > If anyone waits to the end to apply, NCSG might not know who's in our pool > of possibilities and how strong their app looks until the 23rd. And by the > 24th-25th, we will have to notify GNSO who we're nominating, so the > Evaluation Team and the Council can have a day or two for their respective > assessments (these really ought to be sequential, but won't be) before the > Council votes on the 25th or 26th (we're Doodling...it'd be better if we > could do it on the 27th but that's a Saturday and some people may be > reluctant). > > Bottom line, an election would probably have to be held on a 1-2 day > turnaround. Which seems a bit unrealistic, logistically. There'd be time > for members to look at the apps and send comments to the list for the ECs > and Councilors to take on board, which would give us at least a little > community buzz to go on, but one could imagine scenarios in which this could > be a little unfair to the candidates. We need to think about the options. > > Needless to say, it's ironic that the schedule for an accountability > exercise may well preclude an election...but these are the cards we've been > dealt. And this is with us having pestered staff for a week extension, > their original plan had apps due the 17th, before the Council could even > agree its selection procedures and additional qualifications. So we just > have to make the best of it with this first review team cycle. In April, the > Council drafting team will try to assemble a standing mechanism for the > handling of future RT nomination rounds, with the benefit of whatever we > learn this time, and we shouldn't have to deal with another compressed time > line like this. > > Anyway, now we need to focus on getting good candidates who have the time, > knowledge, and experience needed to really contribute in the RT. Ideally, > our nominees will be able to bring to the table the concerns and experiences > of the NCUC/SG with respect to A&T, but also to be reasonably objective too > (I'd suspect Janis and Peter will be less inclined to select someone they > perceive as likely to only advance a narrow SG perspective). > > To reiterate, we need to select in about ten days: > > *One person for the slot allocated to NCSG > *Probably up to two NCSG reps to compete in the open slot subject to a > majority vote of both houses in Council > *In addition, there's a slot reserved for people who are not affiliated > with an SG, including the NCAs. NCSG Council reps will need to vote on > filling this one too (again, a majority vote of both houses wins). We could > support a NCA candidate, if there is one, and/or we could encourage some > independent academics or others with expertise on either ICANN or > organizational A&T to stand. Even if the latter folks didn't get elected, > they might be considered by Janis and Peter for the Expert position. > > Finally, despite all this elaborate apparatus, a reality to bear in mind is > that probably only two RT positions will be given to the GNSO. So NCSG > support for a nominee is only the first step in the process, and probably at > best one NCSG-backed person would get in this time. However, those odds > shouldn't discourage applications, since throwing a hat in the ring may give > a leg up for the next or a future RT (e.g. if they don't pick an NCSG-backed > person this time, they might feel more inclined to do so the next) or > position one for consideration for the Expert post. AoC reviews will be an > ongoing activity in ICANN, so a long view is merited. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > > Thanks for this, Bill - it's not your fault the process and details are so > arcane and torturous! > > I see no reason why the diversity requirements/language should be struck. > It's important - especially as ICANN goes into the first AoC review phase - > to demonstrate both the need for as well as the existence (as far as > possible) of diverse representation in the ICANN community. > > Equally I agree that Councillors should not be precluded in principle from > being eligible for a Review Team, for the reasons you stated. > > I too would very much welcome members' opinions on the questions/issues > raised by Bill before we go into the Council meeting on the 18th. > > Cheers > Mary > > *Mary W S Wong* > Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Franklin Pierce Law Center > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: [log in to unmask] > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) > at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > >>> > *From: * William Drake <[log in to unmask]> *To:* < > [log in to unmask]> *Date: * 2/11/2010 8:30 AM *Subject: * Re: > AoC Accountability and Transparency Review Team selectionsHi, > > Thanks Avri for passing along Chuck's message to SG chairs to get this > started. As chair of the council drafting team that assembled the proposed > process I guess it falls to me to walk through the details. Looong and > somewhat complicated message follows, so get comfortable... > > As members will recall, in December ICANN released an Affirmation > Reviews Requirements and Implementation processes Draft Proposal > http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/affirmation-reviews-draft-proposal-26dec09-en.pdf that envisioned, inter alia, very small review teams carrying out > the Affirmation of Commitments requirements. NCUC/SG members expressed > concern about the staff proposal to limit GNSO participation to one or less > representative per team, a concern that was shared by other SGs and thus > incorporated into the council response filed in the public comment period > http://forum.icann.org/lists/affrev-draft-processes/msg00008.html, which > we discussed a few weeks back on this list. We do not know the answer yet > as to how many GNSO reps will be on the first review team, > for Accountability and Transparency. However, there's reason to believe > that the number will be raised to at least two, and the council has > proceeded on that assumption. > > ICANN announced its call for applicants > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-03feb10-en.htm before > the GNSO or other SO/ACs had had a chance to determine how many names they > would put forward, whether they wanted to set any additional qualification > requirements for candidates, or how to structure their nomination processes. > In addition, ICANN proposed a time line for submissions that was very short > and utterly unworkable. The council drafting team therefore asked for an > extension and managed to get a few more days, so now we have a timeline that > is merely potentially unworkable. Anyway, this is why, when someone > declared interest on the list the other day in being nominated, I suggested > holding off until the process of being nominated by GNSO was clearer and we > knew when applications would be due. The latter point is now settled; the > application deadline is now 22 February. The former is now clearer, but > there could be process revisions. > > In order to give the Selectors sufficient options and to offer interested > parties sufficient opportunities to participate, the drafting team decided > to propose that the GNSO nominate up to six people, from which the Selectors > (the GAC chair and chair of the Board) will pick, hopefully at least two. > It was initially suggested in the drafting team that these all be selected > by a majority vote of both houses' councilors, but as this could have > resulted in a given SG (including us) not getting any, I counter-proposed > allocating one fixed slot to each SG, reserving one slot for NCAs and others > who don't self-identify with a given SG, and leaving one slot open to > contention by anyone, including SG candidates. The latter two would be > selected by a majority vote of both houses' councilors. This is the formula > that was included in the drafting team's process proposal > submitted yesterday to the council for a vote in its 18 February meeting. > > In short then, the proposed nomination process (with arrows for action > items) is as follows: > > 1. Each SG will select one nominee for a fixed allocation slot. > > 2. Up to two additional nominees will be selected by a simple majority vote > of each house. Again, one slot will be open to applicants of any kind, while > the other slot will be reserved for candidates who do not self-identify with > any particular stakeholder group, including NomCom appointees. (In the event > that more than two candidates receive at least a simple majority from > each house, ties will be broken as follows, in the order presented: > geographical and/or gender diversity; and the total votes received.) > > => Hence, NCSG will need to select one person who'd definitely be included > in the pool of nominees submitted to the Selectors. And we can also submit > candidates for Council consideration in a competitive vote for the open to > anyone slot. Council needs to decide how many candidates a SG can submit > for that; some in the drafting team were thinking up to two, and that's what > Chuck put in brackets in the message to SG chairs. If that's what > happens in the 18 February meeting, then we will want to identify up to > three names, a primary for the fixed slot and two competitors for the open > slot. If instead the council decides on a larger number, or no limitations, > then NCSG could pick more for the latter. > > 3. Some in the drafting team were concerned that if the Council did opt > for a larger number, or no limitations, the council could be swamped with > applications its member wouldn't have time to read carefully before the two > houses vote. They therefore suggested that there be an Evaluation > Team comprising one Councilor from each stakeholder group plus one NomCom > appointee to assess the applications for the two voted slots and report to > the Council. (the original idea was that the ET would actually rank > applicants, but we decided not to specify ex ante how they'd proceed...will > depend on the pool etc) Personally, I'm not clear that this additional > machinery is needed since Council will probably limit the number for the > open slot to something manageable, and even if it doesn't, SGs will probably > vote their preferences irrespective of any ET advice. Also quite unclear is > whether there will actually be time for this exercise. But as part of the > compromising process this was left in for now. Hence, under the current > plan, somehow/sometime prior to the vote the ET will assess the applications > and somehow identify what it thinks are most plausible ones, which the > Council can take under advisement if it likes. > > => Assuming we stick with this plan, NCSG therefore will need to select one > person to represent it on the Evaluation Team. > > A major bone of contention in the drafting team concerned diversity > requirements. The language I drafted is pretty tame but apparently not tame > enough, as it was supported by half the team and opposed by the other half. > We agreed to leave the language in the plan that Council will vote on, but > it is expected that CSG and perhaps the other industry SGs will propose an > amendment to strike it from the plan. The language is as follows: > > 3. Unless the applicant pool does not allow, no more than two nominees > should come > from the same geographical region. > 4. Unless the applicant pool does not allow, nominees must not all be of > the same > gender, and the distribution between genders should be no greater than > two-thirds to > one-third. > 5. If the diversity goals in points 3 and 4 above are not achieved in the > initial round of > selections, the Evaluation Team will consult with the stakeholder groups > and > NomCom appointees to review the candidate pool, and then present to the > Council an > alternative mix that would meet the goals. The Council would vote on the > new list, > with a simple majority of both houses required for acceptance. If the vote > fails, the > cycle will repeat until there is a successful outcome. > > => It would be helpful if NCSG members could weigh in and provide our > Councilors with input on how to approach this in the meeting on the 18th. > The options are a) propose an amendment with stronger diversity language, > which definitely will not pass, or weaker language (but why would we); b) > support or oppose any amendment to strike this language from the plan; and > c) if the language is struck, support or oppose the motion adopting the > plan. I made clear in the drafting team that I will oppose an amendment to > strike and will not vote for the final plan if it is (would be interesting > to vote against a motion I made, but whatever), and speculated that some if > not all other NCSG Councilors might do the same, in which case GNSO would be > adopting its AoC process on a divided vote, which would be notably bad > optics etc. But I don't know for sure how everyone feels about this. > > => NCSG members should be aware that there will probably be another > amendment proposed by CSG and perhaps other industry SGs. This would be to > make Councilors ineligible for nomination to review teams. Here too the > drafting team was split 50/50 along the same lines as above. While one > could argue that a Councilor might be hard pressed to handle both positions, > thus of us who oppose restrictions see them as contrary to the AOC language, > anti-democratic (people should be free to stand, and free to vote for > whomever they like), a bit condescending (candidates presumably can assess > their own ability to do the work or not), and likely to preclude valuable > knowledge from being brought into the RTs. If Councilors don't think > someone can handle the work, despite what they say, they should simply vote > against the person, IMHO. Anyway, we might want to talk about this and how > to vote on such an amendment. > > The above all pertains to the nomination process. Moving on, the Council > also wanted to add additional, GNSO-specific requirements on applicant > qualifications to the generic ones listed by ICANN. These too are covered > in the process plan. Some of them are kind of copy editorial (things ICANN > might have specified but didn't), some are legalize of interest to corporate > lawyers/reps, and some are of general import to applicants like NCSGers. > I'll just mention the latter: > > j. Applicants interested in being considered for endorsement by the GNSO > must also > include in their submission to ICANN the following information: > > [snip] > > • An attestation that the applicant is able and willing to commit at least > ten > hours per week during the review period, in addition to participating in > the > planned face to face and/or teleconference review team meetings; > • A two to three paragraph statement about the applicant’s knowledge of the > GNSO community and its structure and operations, and any details of his/her > participation therein; or > • In the event that an applicant has not been involved in the GNSO > community, > a two to three paragraph description of his/her qualifications that would > be of > relevance to the accountability and transparency review team. > > =>Anyone from NCSG thinking of applying should therefore begin thinking > about how they'd answer these questions, maybe draft some text. Again > though, this is not final until the Council votes the 18th, and maybe the > wording will change a little. So I'd suggest holding off on finalizing and > submitting an application until the 19th earliest, remembering again that > the deadline for submission is just a few days later, the 22nd. Tight > window. Alas, just one of them. > > > Here's an overview of the whole time line, with action items: > > 13-22 February > *NCSG Councilors have to decide how to vote on the possible amendments to > the plan, and on the plan as a whole, in Council 18 February. We might > also want to revisit the utility of the Evaluation Team, in the event that > Council caps SG apps for the open slot at two. > *Potential candidates should work their applications and preferably > announce their intention to stand. > *NCSG should define the process by which it will make its selections; the > earlier the better. Avri will be getting back to everyone to start that > conversation. > > 22 February > Applications due at ICANN > > 23-24 February (depending on whether the special Council meeting to vote is > scheduled for 25 or 26 February) > *Once all the applications have beens sent to ICANN and then forwarded from > there to the GNSO Secretariat and then on to the NCSG, we will need to make > our selections, basically in one to two days. This timeline may make it > difficult to conduct an all-member election; we'd need to receive and > distribute all applications, everyone would have to read and judge them, > then the election machinery would have to be implemented, all at lightening > speed. Another option might be for people to express views on the list and > then the final decision on how to vote in Council is made by the policy comm > & Councilors taking those views into account. An election is obviously > preferable in principle, whether it's doable in practice is something we > need to think through. > > 24 or 25 February (depending per above) > *NCSG would then: > a. Endorse one [primary] candidate [and up to two alternates] from > the applications received and notify the GNSO Secretariat of the same. [At > least one alternate must be of different gender and from a different > geographic region from the primary candidate.] > b. Provide direction for their Councilors regarding what candidates > they should endorse for the two open endorsements described in item 2 above. > > 24 or 25 February > *Having received nominations from the SGs, the Evaluation Team would > somehow do a lightening assessment of their candidates plus those for the > unaffiliated slot and make a rec to Council > > 25 or 26 February Council has a special meeting to vote on the two open > slots > *If the result of this first round exercise is inadequate gender and > geographic diversity, the Evaluation Team would consult with SGs and others > involved and try to work out a compromise that meets the requirements listed > above > > 1 March > The Council notifies the Selectors of its nominations > > Week of Nairobi meeting or just after > *Selectors announce the RT's composition > > And then the fun begins for RT members (see the timeline in the above > mentioned ARR implementation plan draft) > > This is all clear, right? :-) Obviously, it's a bit baroque, the time > line is insanely compressed, and some bits (IMO the ET assessment, for which > there's just no time) are problematic. But that's where things stand now. > > If anyone has any questions I can try to clarify, probably I've botched the > explanation of something.... > > > Oh, and the relevant documents are: > > Motion on the Proposed Process for GNSO Endorsements > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_february_2010_motions > > AoC DT Action Plan for Development of GNSO Endorsement of RT Volunteers > > http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-endorsement-volunteers-action-plan-10feb10-en.pdf > > Proposed Process for GNSO Endorsement of Nominees to the Affirmation of > Commitments Accountability and Transparency Review Team > > http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-endorsement-nominees-process-proposal-10feb10-en.pdf > > > Best, > > Bill > > On Feb 11, 2010, at 7:03 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > One of the Issues for the meeting on 17 Feb > > a. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *"Gomes, Chuck" <[log in to unmask]> > *Date: *11 February 2010 01:01:57 GMT+01:00 > *To: *"David W. Maher" <[log in to unmask]>, "Mason Cole" < > [log in to unmask]>, "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask]>, "J. Scott Evans" < > [log in to unmask]>, "Marilyn Cade" <[log in to unmask]>, < > [log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>, "Jaime B Wagner" < > [log in to unmask]> > *Cc: *Glen de Saint G*ry <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]> > > *Message to SG Chairs and Constituency Leaders* > > > A GNSO Council motion has been made and seconded for action on 18 February > to approve a plan whereby the GNSO may endorse up to six volunteers for > the 2010 Affirmation of Commitments Accountability and Transparency Review > Team as follows: > 1. Each stakeholder group will select one nominee. > 2. Up to two additional nominees will be selected by a simple > majority vote of each house. One of these slots will be reserved for > candidates who do not self-identify with any particular stakeholder group, > including NomCom appointees. > > > If this plan is approved, all applications from volunteers requesting GNSO > endorsement would be forwarded to the SGs as soon as possible after the > application period closes on 22 February, and not later than 24 or 25 > February (depending on whether a special Council meeting is scheduled for 25 > or 26 February), the SGs would be requested to: > a. Endorse one [primary] candidate [and up to two alternates] from > the applications received and notify the GNSO Secretariat of the same. [At > least one alternate must be of different gender and from a different > geographic region from the primary candidate.][1] > b. Provide direction for their Councilors regarding what candidates > they should endorse for the two open endorsements described in item 2 above > . > > > With the understanding that the proposed plan could be amended on 18 > February, anything you can do to prepare for the above tasks and facilitate > success of the endorsement process will be greatly appreciated. As you > can tell, the SGs and the Council will have extremely short turn-around > times for the above tasks. > > > If you have any questions, please let me know. > > > Chuck Gomes > > ------------------------------ > [1] Bracketed text was added by the Council Chair and not approved by the > GNSO DT that developed the proposed endorsement process. The GNSO > community and the GNSO Council will have just 2 to 3 days to review > applications from volunteers requesting GNSO endorsement, so if the SGs can > provide the two alternates as described in addition to a primary candidate, > it could greatly facilitate Council final action on the endorsements on > either 25 or 26 February. > > P.S. - In addressing this message, I realized that I was not sure who the > NCSG and CSG chairs are so I included constituency leaders as best as I > could determine so as to get this message out as soon as possible. If I > missed anyone, please forward this message right away. > > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > [log in to unmask] > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask] > > > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > [log in to unmask] > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA <[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]>