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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

BTW, my comment c) was not intended to be part of the plan.  I was
simply trying to be transparent about the fact that the proposal as
worded could result in that outcome.  I will create a clear version of
the proposal as submitted and propose a change to deal with this
concern.
 
Change: 


________________________________

        From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 12:42 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: Rafik Dammak; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO
endorsement of AoC Review Team Volunteers
        
        
        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
        ***********************************************************