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

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

Bill - The edits weren't accepted in the version I received so I
accepted them to create clean versions.  

All - Please see my comments and questions below.

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.

Chuck: I would like to proceed as Chair today with all four actions of
Action Plan item 2.  If no one objects by 12 pm PST (3 pm EST, 8 pm
UTC), I will go ahead and proceed.

> 
> 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?

Chuck:  We probably need to address this in the plan.  What about
something like this: 1) The ET & SGs evaluate candidates requesting GNSO
endorsement independently from one another; 2) the ET ranks all
candidates and the SGs rank only candidates they are willing to endorse;
3) any candidates ultimately endorsed by the SGs and approved by the
Council are eliminated from the ET rankings; 4) the two open slots are
filled by the Council based on the remaining candidates in the ET
rankings.  (I don't have to much time at the moment to think about this
so not sure if it works but I think it would.)
 

>  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?).

Chuck: It seems unlikely that there would be enough time for the SGs to
make their decisions and report to the ET with enough time left for the
ET to do its ranking, so I don't that option works.  The value of the ET
rankings is to make it easier for the Council to make decisions on the
26th; if the Council has to review all applications on the 26th, that
would take a lot of time; ideally everyone should do that before the
meeting, but I doubt that would happen.  Does my proposed solution above
help?

> 
> 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...?

Chuck:  At a minimum I think it would be helpful if the ET made a
judgement as to whether they believe the applicants meet the
qualifications and, if not, why not.  But I think it would be helpful if
they rank the candidates in terms of how well they meet the
requirements.  It would also be helpful if they make recommendations in
terms of geographical and gender diversity like you suggest.
 
> 
> 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.

Chuck:  Here's a new idea for 5.  Ask SGs to attempt to endorse at least
three candidates from different geographic regions and not all the same
gender and to identify their primary choice.  The Council could then use
this information on the 26th to make any required adjustments.

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

Chuck: I think I made a mistake on this.  I am okay with both statements
so my deletion should be rejected.

> 
> *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
> 
>