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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

 

 

Deutsche Telekom AG
Head Office T-Home
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 140, 53113 Bonn, Germany
+49 2244 873999 (Phone)
+49 2244 873955 (Fax)
+49 151 1452 5867 (Mobile)
E-Mail: knobenw@xxxxxxxxxx
www.telekom.com 

Life is for sharing. 

 

Deutsche Telekom AG
Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Chairman)
Board of Management: René Obermann (Chairman),
Hamid Akhavan, Dr. Manfred Balz, Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme,
Timotheus Höttges, Guido Kerkhoff, Thomas Sattelberger
Commercial register: Local court Bonn HRB 6794
Registered office: Bonn
WEEE reg. no. DE50478376

 

 

  _____  

Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2010 19:09
An: William Drake; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some Ambiguities to Clean Up?


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.] 
I[WUK: ] agree, it should be open. Regarding the unaffiliated I expect 
applications sent directly to ICANN being addressed to the GNSO after Feb 18, 
even after Feb 25.

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.]
[WUK: ] There will be no perfect mechanism. Trust the ET!


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.]
[WUK: ] I wouldn't fix the number. Let's really see what happens and how many 
applications we can get. Maybe the SG should prioritize. 
 

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/] 
[WUK: ] That's the consequence in case no SG (constituency) directions is given 
to the councillors. I'll then decide based on my best knowledge - and 
gutfeeling.

Maybe I'm just over thinking this stuff?
[WUK: ]  You do an excellent job!  

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.] 
[WUK: ] Keep our SGs/constituencies informed as much as possible. Sometimes 
time pressure is helpful for coming to decisions (see motion on Board seat #13 
selection) 

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.] <outbind://79/#_ftn1> [1]
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


  _____  

 <outbind://79/#_ftnref1> [1] 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
***********************************************************