[gnso-arr-dt] Re: Two documents attached

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

On Feb 8, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> When you see all the redlining, you may think I didn't do a very good
> job of cleaning these documents up.  If you would rather see clean
> versions, please accept all the edits. My edits should appear in a
> different color than Bill's. 

Thanks Chuck.  I've accepted all so they're easier to read and attached, with 
two exceptions noted below where the issues are unresolved.  Mostly the changes 
should be noncontroversial, but of course if something's been overlooked that 
needs more discussion folks should flag, and any further tweaks we may need can 
be made on the currently clean versions for easy ID.
> 
> Note that the due dates have been changed a little.  There should be an
> ICANN announcement today extending the deadline for applications for
> volunteers for the A&T DT to 22 Feb. and giving us until 1 March to
> provide our endorsements.  I set a goal of Friday, 26 March for
> finalizing our endorsements to try to avoid getting into the week of 1
> March when people will begin traveling to Nairobi.  If needed, we may
> need Monday, 1 March if we cannot reach consensus on final endorsements
> on 26 February.

Timeline seems the only way forward given that Marco said we can't report 
nominees later than 1 March.  I note though that ICANN has yet to announce the 
deadline extension, and confusion may ensue (yesterday Robin sent NCSG a 
reminder of the still standing 17th deadline and I had to reply no please hold 
off...).  I hope Marco Janis and Peter resolve this today and post the 
extension.

In this context, the important operative bits of the Action Plan are 2 c & d.  
We should all get the word out in the SGs that applicants should hold off 
finalizing and submitting their materials and in the 18th-22nd window add the 
GNSO bits.

One question on the Action Plan revision: under 4c2, not later than 25 
February, the SGs are requested to provide direction for their Councilors 
regarding what candidates they should endorse for two open endorsements.  Under 
6b, the 18th Council call is to form an Evaluation Team to rate the responses 
and report to the Council list not later than 25 Feb.  In this case, the SGs 
potentially are having a discussion and then announcing on the 25th who if 
anyone they'd like to nominate for the open seats without knowing how the ET 
has ranked the options.  So for example, an SG decides ok we have two names we 
want to advance and we rank them 1, 2, and then the ET comes back and says the 
SG's 1 is ranked low but 2 higher, or whatever.  What is the practical effect 
of the ET's ranking then?  The SG has decided how its Councilors will vote in 
the 26th teleconference irrespective of the pan-SG ET's work.  If the ET 
process is to serve any purpose, presumably it is to give SGs a senses of how 
other SGs view the candidacies and the likely prospects of their approval, 
which could lead to some recalibration.  It seems to me that either the ET 
should report back to the SGs earlier, before they announce preferences, or 
that we could dispense with the ET process entirely (upon reflection, it's not 
entirely obvious what the value is...we're adding an extra set of steps for 
what?).

Where the ET (or some other named grouping) can be useful is in dealing with a 
first round outcome that has inadequate diversity, i.e. by speeding up any 
horse trading and mutual adjustment between the 26th and 1st if needed.  But 
I'm not sure this morning if we really need it to rank applicants...?

What do people think?  

> 
> Setting aside for a moment item 5 of the proposed process (i.e., the
> second document), are there any concerns about any other elements of
> either document.  In other words, can we say that we have reached
> consensus on everything except item 5 of the process?

I left two sets of ed comments from Chuck unaccepted that need discussion:

*Re: 5 and diversity, Chuck asks "How will the Evaluation Team know whether the 
diversity goals are met.  I think this assumes that the Evaluation Team will 
know the results of the SG selections and that may not be possible."  My 
thought was that the ET would take this up after the teleconference vote of the 
26th if needed, by which point all initial selections are known.  If the result 
was inadequate diversity, then we'd have a vehicle for expediting and 
coordinating horse trading etc (if possible...depends on the pool).  Of course, 
if we do an ET ranking exercise earlier, diversity might enter into the advice 
then on the open seats.

*If I understand correctly, Chuck asks if there isn't duplication between these 
two elements of j:

·Identification of any financial ownership or senior management/leadership 
interest of the applicant in registries, registrars or other entities that are 
stakeholders or interested parties in ICANN or any entity with which ICANN has 
a transaction, contract, or other arrangement;

·Indication of whether the applicant would be representing any other party or 
person through her/his review team participation and, if so, identification of 
that party or person;

Would be good to hear from the folks who wanted these provisions.

BD

Attachment: AoC DT Action Plan with Edits Accepted.doc
Description: MS-Word document

Attachment: AoC RTs Process with edits accepted.doc
Description: MS-Word document