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

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

Thanks Bill.

Based on the message you and I received from Marco that they are on
hold, I wonder if they are waiting on us for the announcement.  Should I
go ahead and say that we will go with the new timeline?  I thought I had
indicated that but I must not have been direct enough.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:11 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Two documents attached
> Importance: High
> 
> 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
> 
>