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

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

I don't think there is anything to prevent us from having a motion with
bracketed alternatives.  What I worry about is the very short time
period we have.  If we get to our meeting on 18 Feb and cannot get at
least simple majority support for one combination of options, what do we
do?  Maybe we could take straw polls during the few days before and try
to identify what combination of options are most likely to have enough
support. There will be little time to consult with our respective
groups; what happens if one groups picks a set of options and those
don't gain enough support; will there be time to consult again?
Probably not.

Regarding separating the motions, here is an alternative approach: 1) We
put forward a motion that has the diversity and gender
requirements(assuming the DT mostly favors this approach); 2) amendments
are proposed and voted on before the motion is voted on.  This might be
more realistic from a time perspective.  Amendments could be proposed
soon after the motion is made to check support.

Chuck

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:32 PM
> To: Rosette, Kristina
> Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Two documents attached
> 
> 
> Hi K
> 
> On Feb 9, 2010, at 11:03 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> 
> > Didn't mean to upset the apple cart so to speak.  There was an IPC 
> > meeting so figured I'd raise it.
> > 
> > As to the overall process guidance, I'm not as much a veteran as 
> > others so will defer. With that caveat, I would suggest (i) 
> one motion 
> > that approves the texts, place options in brackets, and requests 
> > everyone to work on list so text can be finalized and voted on; and 
> > (ii) a conditional motion (conditional on Council supporting IPC 
> > proposal to move diversity requirements to final RT 
> selection by PDT 
> > and JK) that sets out the diversity requirements Council believes 
> > should be reflected in overall RT composition.
> 
> Re: i) This is what I don't know, can we have a motion to 
> approve a text with brackets meaning the provisions are not 
> approved?  I've not seen this in the year and change I've 
> been on the council.
> 
> Re: ii) why would this particular issue need a different 
> motion, if we were doing the brackets thing? 
> 
> FWIW a personal view: PDT and JK will of course look for a 
> diverse team, but to get there they need a diverse pool to 
> choose from.  And there's arguably something to be said for 
> the council striving in this direction in its own workings 
> rather than saying diversity is something that should be 
> achieved elsewhere in ICANN.    
> > 
> > As for the specific options, preferences are:  
> > 
> > 1.  Evaluation Team:  a
> > 2.  Diversity:  c
> > 3.  Eligibility:  c
> 
> Since we're putting our cards on the table early, again 
> personally, mine are c, b, a.  I and believe most if not all 
> NCSG won't vote for a motion that has no diversity 
> requirements and restricts the rights of individuals to stand 
> for an office or vote for whomever they like.  
> 
> Hmm....this might turn out to be a field day for bloggers, 
> ICANN critics, the ITU, etc....after a very depressing day at 
> the IGF consultation, not a cheery thought.
> > 
> > As for diversity, I had understood that the diversity criteria in 3 
> > and
> > 4 were requirements and not aspirational goals.  Did I 
> misunderstand?
> 
> "Unless the applicant pool does not allow, no more than two 
> volunteers should come from the same geographical region.
> Unless the applicant pool does not allow, nominees must not 
> all be of the same gender, and the distribution between 
> genders should be no greater than two-thirds to one-third."
> 
> If there are sufficient applications to make the goals 
> attainable, then should.  If not then not.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:50 PM
> > To: Rosette, Kristina
> > Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Two documents attached
> > 
> > Hi Kristina,
> > 
> > Thanks for sharing.  I'd thought the idea was that we'd go 
> back to our 
> > respective constituencies and SGs for a view after the DT had a 
> > text/motion before the council, but hearing at the front end is an 
> > alternative...
> > 
> > Not sure how to proceed now, with us due to pass it to 
> council tomorrow.
> > Based on the comments thus far, the unresolved issues in 
> the air would 
> > seem to be:
> > 
> > 1.  Evaluation Team.  
> > Option a) Does ranking of the candidates for the two "open" 
> slots to 
> > provide guidance to council prior to vote Option b) Does 
> ranking and 
> > also assesses/negotiates diversity after first round if 
> needed Option 
> > c) No ET, the council reads the files and forms it own view 
> and works 
> > out a compromise on diversity after round 1 if need be
> > 
> > 2.  Diversity
> > Option a) ET (of if 1c followed, the council) assesses the 
> situation 
> > after round 1 and works out an accommodation if needed in 
> accordance 
> > with the goals mentioned Option b) Each SG commits to nominating 
> > diversely at the front end (assuming more than 1 nominee) 
> and council 
> > also takes the goals into account in voting the two open Option c) 
> > Eliminate diversity requirements (including the goals?)
> > 
> > 3.  Eligibility Restrictions
> > Option a) None, candidates and voters are presumed able to assess 
> > ability to handle the work etc Option b) No councilors in 
> "leadership 
> > positions" (I've not been clear how deep that goes...just the chair 
> > and VCs or also WGs, DTs, etc...) Option c) No councilors, full stop
> > 
> > What I'd do in other collaborative settings would be to 
> submit a text 
> > with these options in brackets and then have people talk 
> them through, 
> > try for consensus, vote if not.  In the council context I'm 
> not clear 
> > on whether that'd be procedurally unusual or unworkable.  
> One motion, 
> > multiple, what...?
> > 
> > Need some veteran process guidance please.
> > 
> > Bill
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Feb 9, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> All,
> >> 
> >> The IPC would like to defer for now a decision on whether the DT 
> >> Action Plan will apply to all review teams.
> >> 
> >> 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.
> >> 
> >> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > ***********************************************************
> > William J. Drake
> > Senior Associate
> > Centre for International Governance
> > Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, 
> > Switzerland william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> > ***********************************************************
> > 
> > 
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> ***********************************************************
> 
> 
> 
>