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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

My personal poll:

1.  Evaluation Team:  a
2.  Diversity:  c (no requirement but optional) on SG level; leave it as a goal 
on council level
3.  Eligibility:  c following Kristina's argument with Councillors' workload



Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Februar 2010 23:32
An: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: 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
***********************************************************