AoC RT Nominations Process & Time Line

[Avri Doria]

>> 9  March Constituency Day in Nairobi
>> It would make sense to use this opportunity to review our nomination options and the larger lay of the land, who the others SGs have nominated etc, and make decisions if possible.

ok. will add to agenda.

a.


On 22 Feb 2010, at 13:18, William Drake wrote:

> Hi
> 
> As we'd been waiting for final word from ICANN on some dates, the documents approved in the Council's meeting Thursday listed multiple alternatives.  Things are now mostly clarified, and here's the time line:
> 
> 7  March
> Applications due at ICANN, rtcandidatures at icann.org  (although the call confusingly says to apply via an SO/AC).  Applicants looking for GNSO endorsements must of course fill out the additional GNSO information requirements and are encouraged to indicate in their apps which SG they feel most affiliated with, if applicable; otherwise the Evaluation Team will allocate them to the slots based on available info and consultation.
> 
> 9  March Constituency Day in Nairobi
> It would make sense to use this opportunity to review our nomination options and the larger lay of the land, who the others SGs have nominated etc, and make decisions if possible.
> 
> 14 March 
> If they haven't already, SGs must notify GNSO Secretariat of their nominations and provide any guidance to their Councilors on votes for the two slots.
> 
> 14 March 
> Evaluation Team is to report to Council on its assessment (which would not be able to take into consideration SG nominations not yet received, perhaps an argument for notifying earlier, like 10 March ).   
> 
> 15-16th March
> Council call to vote.  If the result is poor with respect to diversity and there are options to correct, the ET will have to figure something out rather quickly in consultation with the SGs in order to get council sign off and send to Janis and Peter the 17th.  
> 
> Again, NCSG can nominate up to three people—one for the fixed slot allocated to us, and two for the slot that's open to competitive election in the two houses.  Moreover, we may or may not want to encourage someone qualified from outside NCSG to stand for the slot reserved for unaffiliated persons, and/or to be considered for the Independent Expert on the A&T RT.
> 
> Milton suggested Jorge Amodio, who'd certainly be a great candidate for one of our three if he's willing (would also be good for the Security and Stability RT later in the year).  Hopefully other folks here will also feel moved to throw their hats in the ring, we've got a lot of options.
> 
> Beyond the issue of names we have internal procedural issues to decide:
> 
> 
> On Feb 18, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> As people probably noticed in the AoC A&T RT (AoC Accountability and Transparency Review Team) there were two roles that need to be selected:
>> 
>> 1.  We need to pick someone who will act as a member of the Evaluation Team (ET). This groups is responsible for dealing with any problems with gender of geographic diversity among the GSNO selectees.  We discussed this yesterday during the open NCSG Policy phone call and since someone needed to be ready by today's GNSO Council meeting asked Bill Drake, who is probably the most informed person on this whole process, to be our representative to the ET.    Please let this list know if you see this as a problem. 
> 
> There having been no objections, I'm representing NCSG on the ET.
>> 
>> 2. Once there are a few candidates for the AoC A&T RT, we will need to decide on who the candidates are.  The process we discussed during the meetings was that the 
>>    1. names would be announced on the public list
>>    2. comments on the candidates would be invited
>>    3. a decision would be made by the NCSG Policy Committee which is composed of the NCSG Council members, the NCSG Executive Committee, and the chair of the NCUC
> 
> See above suggestion re: Constituency Day
>> 
>> We also decided that I would send a note to the full list checking to see if this was acceptable.  This is that note.
>> 
>> There was one question of whether the comments would be secret or open. People in the meeting spoke in favor of openness.  People should comment on this issue as well.
>> 
>> Finally there is a need for good candidates for the NCSG-Policy to choose from.  So please consider whether you are an appropriate candidate and consider those who you know who you think might be good and convince them to apply (once the applications procedure is finalized).
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill