RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some Ambiguities to Clean Up?

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

See my super brief comments below.  Am totally buried with work so won't
be back onto this subject until late tonight.


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
        Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 12:32 PM
        To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Some Ambiguities to Clean Up?
        Importance: High
        
        
        Hi, 

        While probably all of us would rather/need to think about
something else today, while looking at Chuck's message to chairs and
writing a long explanatory note to NCSG today, my attention was drawn to
a couple ambiguities.  Probably we should discuss here first rather than
directly dragging the whole council into the weeds, although we may need
to if and when we have answers to propose. 

        1.  Originally we reserved one of the two house elected slots
for those who don't self-identify with an SG (let's call it #5 for ease
of reference) and left the other (#6) nominally undefined.  I figured
that having specified #5, #6 would be understood as everyone who's not
in 5, i.e. SG members.  But on the call we said let's add a sentence
defining it, which we did: "open to applicants of any kind."  Question
is, is that true?  If it is, those who don't self-identify presumably
could be considered for #5 and/or #6, which would alters the two pools
and isn't what we intended.  Mixing the two pools in one vote wouldn't
be an answer, it'd be unfair to the non-identified, who presumably could
get fewer votes than SG-affiliateds.  I wonder if the two need to be
more cleanly separated via an amendment cleaning up the language, ugh,
or if we can just adopt an internal procedure for allocating without
risking complaints post hoc. 
         
        [KR: If we didn't intend 6 to be open to SG and "unaffiliated",
we should say that. Given the potentially high number of unaffiliated, I
personally think 6 should be open to everyone, but know not all agree.
Regardless, we should say what we mean.] 

        2.  We also didn't say how/by whom applicants get allocated
between the two, but presumably we do this, not the candidates. So when
the secretariat forwards the apps, someone (the ET?) will have to
allocate them to one or the other.  And determine whether they're really
unaffiliated?  What if, for example, someone who's really tied to a SG
thinks hmm, my chances are better if I say I don't identify, as #5 may
have fewer competitors, with no other SGs behind them.  Or, I suppose a
suicidal unaffiliated wants to be in the "open to applicants of any
kind"...  Does the mechanism need to be publicly stated? 
         
        [KR:  Yes, I believe we have to state mechanism.  No preference
as to who allocates. Believe we should use simple method:  If person has
not disclosed any participation in ICANN before (either as WG member or
as constitutency/SG member) and no one on Council has first-hand
knowledge to contrary, they should be considered "unaffiliated".
Otherwise, we'll twist ourselves into contortions trying to decide.  For
example, do we put a retired business executive who now runs a non
profit into the CSG or NCSG?  What about an IP professor?  Someone who
used to work for a registry, but now has their own non contractedparty
business?  Too much headache for me.]
        
        
        3.  Here's a big one: we didn't say how many people a SG can
nominate for #6.  I note that in the message to SG chairs Chuck's put
[and up to two alternates] but we didn't discuss this.  Two sounds right
to me, better than unlimited.  But further questions arise.  First,
potential asymmetry with #5.  We could have up to 8 candidates for #6,
and just 1 or 2 for #5.   Or 30.  Does this matter?  If the #5 pool is
large, does the ET cut it down to parity with #6, or conversely cut #6
to what #5 is if it's small? Second, if we cap #6 at 8, what does the ET
do, just rank the 8 (the house votes and subsequent reconciliation will
be complex...) Eliminate 4?  What if if we get less, like 3 or 4, do we
need the ET to assess anything?  Perhaps all these are simply "you'll
know it when you get there" questions... 
         
        [KR: Suggest each SG can nominate 3 people for #6.  Number
should be fixed and independent of number of "unaffiliated" candidates.]
         

        4.  Chuck's message to chairs says that on 24 or 25 February SG
should, inter alia, provide direction to their councilors "for the two
open endorsements."  Maybe there's no alternative, but isn't it a bit
conceptually odd to ask SGs to select/endorse people who claim no
connection to them?   [KR:  If Councilors don't have SG direction on how
to vote on #5,how do Councilors decide?  However they want/] 

        Maybe I'm just over thinking this stuff?  

        5.  This one I'm sure I'm not: I raised concern about the ET
function from the standpoint of the timeline, and the on call softening
of the time line seems to complicate things more.  Now we're telling SGs
that on 24 or 25 February they need to nominate, and that council will
vote 25 or 26 February.  When does the ET do its thing?  IF we set hard
and spaced dates, 24 nomination 25 ET 26 vote, ok there's one day (!)
for the ET to do something, but right now it's unclear.  If I recall, a
26th vote didn't work for everyone; we could call it the 27th but that's
the weekend and I assume the non-academics amongst us don't consider
that a natural 12 hour computer day.  

        At a minimum, we need to quickly nail down the time line, giving
out such fluid instructions to the SGs is inevitably going to raise
eyebrows and more.  Doodle the vote meeting.  And BTW, the timeline-22
Feb applications due, as early as 24 Feb SGs must nominate-leaves almost
no time for SGs to do their own thing.  NCSG would normally hold an
election, I don't see how that'd work here, and if not we will be
hearing complaints. 
         
        [KR:  Agree that timing forces SGs and constituencies to
effectively abandon usual procedures.  Ironic given the subject of the
first review.] 

        Presumably as Council colleagues and SG members try to get their
heads around it all there will be more things to clarify, but any
thoughts either way on the above would be appreciated.

        Best,

        Bill



        On Feb 11, 2010, at 1:01 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


                
                Message to SG Chairs and Constituency Leaders

                 

                A GNSO Council motion has been made and seconded for
action on 18 February to approve a plan whereby the GNSO may endorse up
to six volunteers for the 2010 Affirmation of Commitments Accountability
and Transparency Review Team as follows:
                1.      Each stakeholder group will select one nominee.

                2.      Up to two additional nominees will be selected
by a simple majority vote of each house.  One of these slots will be
reserved for candidates who do not self-identify with any particular
stakeholder group, including NomCom appointees.

                 

                If this plan is approved, all applications from
volunteers requesting GNSO endorsement would be forwarded to the SGs as
soon as possible after the application period closes on 22 February, and
not later than 24 or 25 February (depending on whether a special Council
meeting is scheduled for 25 or 26 February), the SGs would be requested
to:
                a.       Endorse one [primary] candidate [and up to two
alternates] from the applications received and notify the GNSO
Secretariat of the same.  [At least one alternate must be of different
gender and from a different geographic region from the primary
candidate.][1] <outbind://79/#_ftn1> 
                b.      Provide direction for their Councilors regarding
what candidates they should endorse for the two open endorsements
described in item 2 above.

                 

                With the understanding that the proposed plan could be
amended on 18 February, anything you can do to prepare for the above
tasks and facilitate success of the endorsement process will be greatly
appreciated.  As you can tell, the SGs and the Council will have
extremely short turn-around times for the above tasks.

                 

                If you have any questions, please let me know.

                 

                Chuck Gomes

                
________________________________

                [1] <outbind://79/#_ftnref1>  Bracketed text was added
by the Council Chair and not approved by the GNSO DT that developed the
proposed endorsement process.  The GNSO community and the GNSO Council
will have just 2 to 3 days to review applications from volunteers
requesting GNSO endorsement, so if the SGs can provide the two
alternates as described in addition to a primary candidate, it could
greatly facilitate Council final action on the endorsements on either 25
or 26 February.
                
                 
                P.S. - In addressing this message, I realized that I was
not sure who the NCSG and CSG chairs are so I included constituency
leaders as best as I could determine so as to get this message out as
soon as possible.  If I missed anyone, please forward this message right
away.


        ***********************************************************
        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
        ***********************************************************