RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Resolving outstanding issues

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

Bill,
 
I assume we will try to resolve any loose ends in our call today.  I
will be away from my office and in an area where cell phone service may
be spotty but will do my best to call in.  If for any reason I do not
have coverage, I will get up to speed as quickly thereafter as possible
and follow-up on any actions needed on my part as Council Chair.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
        Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:43 AM
        To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Resolving outstanding issues
        Importance: High
        
        
        Hi 

        On Feb 9, 2010, at 11:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


                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.
                


        Ok, if the use of brackets is atypical and might confuse things,
let's follow our standard practice then?   We can forward the text and
motion and folks who want to can propose unfriendly amendments a)
deleting the diversity requirements and b) prohibiting councilors from
being considered.  If the Council ends up adopting its procedures on a
divided vote, so be it, ICANN can deal with the optics etc later.  

        Perhaps we can take off the table here the one remaining issue,
the Evaluation Team.  Chuck feels this could provide the houses with
useful guidance on the two open slots prior to voting, I've come to
think that it's an unnecessary additional step that won't serve the
intended purpose.  But I believe neither of us feels strongly enough
about our positions to further block consensus, so if DT members would
express their preferences that'd be great.

        I should remind that if we were to drop the ET then we'd have to
correspondingly change the provision concerning an inadequately diverse
outcome in the first round, i.e. by either having the council constitute
a small group to try and work out a compromise, or having the council
itself deal with this.

        Best,

        Bill