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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
my preference are :
1- c
2- b
3- a

Rafik


2010/2/10 <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
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
>
>