Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement of AoC Review Team Volunteers

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

I agree with those arguing for a bit more emphasis on regional diversity.  To 
have less than three geographic regions represented in a group of six or even 
four would be really bad optics internally (we are after all flying around the 
Nairobi etc to encourage broader engagement) and externally (bearing in mind 
the global political environment around the AoC, the upcoming ITU Plenipot, 
etc).  It would also limit the range of relevant skill sets and perspectives 
that could usefully be brought to bear. As Olga notes, there are plenty of 
qualified people around, and the SGs should do targeted outreach to that end.  
So I do not see a binary trade off with the kinds of capabilities need to do a 
review of transparency and accountability indicators and such.  

FWIW, I am quite confident that if the Council were considering a motion saying 
in effect that the six could all be Americans and Europeans, NCSG members would 
ask their councilors to put in an amendment, as per the Chatham thing, and if 
the amendment were rejected, there would be strong encouragement to vote 
against the motion.  And having the GNSO's procedures for applications be 
endorsed on a divided vote could color a lot of what follows. Similarly,  I and 
probably others in NCSG would not be able to support other elements of that 
sentence, i.e. "it is possible to endorse... no one from a SG, to not endorse 
volunteers from both genders..." without qualifications.

How about,

c) [if the number and diversity of applicants does not allow,] it is possible 
to endorse less than six volunteers, to endorse no one from a SG, to not 
endorse volunteers from both genders and/or have less than three geographic 
regions represented.  
 

Or something like that...

Best,

Bill

to not endorse volunteers from both genders and/or have less than three 
geographic regions represented. 


On Feb 6, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Let me make sure I understand Rafik.  Are you saying that geographic 
> diversity should trump all other requirements?  In other words, if a 
> candidate does not meet other qualifications but does come from a geographic 
> region for which there is no representation, then that candidate should be 
> endorse.
>  
> Olga and Zahid - Because you agreed with Rafik's point, I would appreciate it 
> if each of you would respond to the above question as well.
>  
> Rafik - You did not answer my question: "How would you suggest changing the 
> process?"
>  
> We have an extremely short timeframe.  When anyone disagrees, it would really 
> help if a specific alternative was provided.
>  
> Chuck
> 
> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 1:12 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement of 
> AoC Review Team Volunteers
> 
> Hi Chuck,
> 
> I don't think that we can compromise in that point as the ongoing 
> internationalization of ICANN is critical and I guess that is subject to 
> accountability too.
> with a real constraint, we may urge SGs to involve their members from 
> less-represented regions.  
> the same case may happen somehow for gender balance too.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2010/2/4 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Thanks Rafik.  How would you suggest changing the process?  The proposed 
> wording is: "No more than two volunteers should come from the same 
> geographical region."  The key word is "should"; that was intentional because 
> if there are not qualified, volunteers from enough geographic regions, what 
> would we do?  The goal would be to not have more that two from any one 
> region, but that may not be achievable.
>  
> Chuck 
> 
> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:03 AM
> 
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement of 
> AoC Review Team Volunteers
> 
> 
> Hi Chuck,
> 
> 
>  "have less than three geographic regions represented. ".
>  
> 
> I am uncomfortable with this point because in practice some regions wasn't 
> enough represented and this will allow the status quo for RT. 
> 
> if it is not late, no objection for extension.
> 
> Regards
> 
> rafik
> 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************