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

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

Kristina,

Please see my responses below.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:12 PM
> To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Two documents attached
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> The IPC would like to defer for now a decision on whether the 
> DT Action Plan will apply to all review teams.

We are all deferring that decision.  The Action Plan and Process on the
table are intended for one-time use only, just for the first review, the
2010 Accountability & Transparency Review.  Note that it is recommended
that the DT team continue its work to develop a longer term process that
would be used for other reviews in the future.

> 
> With the exception noted below, the changes look great.  
> Thanks very much for all of your work on these documents, Bill.
> 
> The exception relates to the diversity requirements in points 
> 3 and 4 of the Proposed Process, which the IPC believes 
> should be eliminated and addressed by resolution.
> 
> The IPC places great value on diversity.  Indeed, the IPC has 
> historically been one of few constituencies to have more than 
> one female Councilor seated simultaneously.  However, the IPC 
> believes that imposing diversity criteria on the GNSO's RT 
> member selection process is misplaced for two reasons. First, 
> diversity criteria are far more important and more relevant 
> in the process through which RT members will be selected by 
> the Chairman of the Board and the Chair of the GAC.  As a 
> practical matter, the Council could approve and present a 
> slate of potential RT candidates that is wholly diverse and, 
> depending on the ultimate selection process, the final 
> composition of the RT could completely lack diversity.  
> Second, in light of these constraints, imposing the proposed 
> criteria will do more to limit participation of qualified 
> persons than to advance diversity.  We propose instead that 
> the diversity criteria embodied in points 3 and 4 be the 
> subject of a GNSO Council resolution, calling for the 
> application of those criteria in the final selection of RT members.

Let me make sure I understand.  For this first review, are you saying
that diversity issue should be dealt with by the Council when it
approves the GNSO endorsements on 26 Feb.?  If so, what happens if no SG
endorses a candidate of one gender or if all the candidates endorsed by
the SGs are from just one or two geographic region?  Maybe, I don't
understand how your proposal would be implemented.

>  
> In addition, we believe Councilors should be ineligible for 
> RT participation because of the time commitment required by 
> both responsibilities and the potential for a conflict of 
> interest.  Of course, any Councilor who wishes to resign 
> his/her seat in order to be considered for RT participation 
> should be free to do so.
>  
> K
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:11 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] 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
> 
> 
>