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

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

Thanks Bill. 

I personally still like the concept of the ET, whether they rank or not,
and I prefer ranking if they can do it in the short time, but I will
defer to the group on this.  The reason I like it is that the ET would
be tasked with specifically evaluating each application against the
qualifications and would have more time to do that than most of us who
are not on the review team might have.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:10 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Two documents attached
> Importance: High
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Feb 9, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Bill - The edits weren't accepted in the version I received so I 
> > accepted them to create clean versions.
> 
> Weird, what's on my desk and in my sent folder are.  A Word 
> mystery perhaps.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Good
> > 
> >> 
> >> 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.)
> 
> What I've become less clear on is why rank at all?  What's 
> the added value of the added bureaucracy?  Isn't it possible 
> we're over thinking and over formalizing?  We're talking 
> about two slot out of six (assuming there are at least 6 
> candidates, unclear) that will merely be included in a pool 
> from which Janis and Peter will pick maybe two, which a 
> priori implies any given candidate's chances isn't 
> statistically huge.  Why wouldn't the two houses' majority 
> votes be sufficient vetting of such people?
> > 
> > 
> >> 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?
> 
> I don't want to belabor the point, but unless the candidate 
> pool is really big and the qualified/not split is quite 
> obscure, it's not obvious to me that the council would need 
> this extra guidance in voting.  Or, for that matter, that it 
> would take such guidance; I suspect any given SG (or 
> constituency) would draw its own conclusions and have its own 
> preferences irrespective of what 3 ET members from other SGs 
> have to say.   
> 
> The more I think about this, the more it just looks like 
> extra cycles eating time we don't have.
> >> 
> >> *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.
> 
> I quite like that, provided the SGs all do so.  If for 
> example SG 1 does but SG 2, 3, or 4 throws up its hands and 
> says our only willing Guinea pigs are two white guys from the 
> US, or worse, all three others come up short, then when it 
> comes time to massage things into overall balance, the burden 
> falls on SG1 to maybe take it's third preference rather than 
> the person it really wanted.
> 
> Of course, if we were prepared to not just ask SGs to 
> attempt, but rather to require that that SGs not nominate two 
> candidates from the same demographic, we'd be sure to have a 
> more diverse pool.  I think NCSG would be fine with that.  
> Anyone else?
> 
> In this scenario Chuck, when you say Council would use the 
> info, are you taking the ET out of it?  If so then I'd say 
> let's just toss the ET overboard and the evaluation, voting, 
> and any post hoc adjusting at the council level.
> > 
> >> 
> >> *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.
> 
> Ok...
> 
> BD
> 
>