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

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

I added my comments to Kristina's below.  Assuming we reach agreement on
these in the DT, then the language should be able to be clarified with a
friendly amenment. 
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
        Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:09 PM
        To: William Drake; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: 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.] 
                
                [Gomes, Chuck] I understood #6 to be totally open,
meaning it could be affiliated or not.  If a nominee gets simple
majority vote from each house, that indicates fairly broad support
whether the candidate is afilliated with the GNSO or not.  
                 
                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.]
                
                [Gomes, Chuck]  I agree that the candidates should not
select a category; we should determine that in the way that Kristina
suggests.  It is the SG perogative to decide whether they endorse a
candidate or not and there is nothing to prevent them from endorsing a
volunteer who is totally affiliated or even who is affiliated with
another SG.  
                
                
                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.]
                
                [Gomes, Chuck]  Should we allow the NCAs to nominate as
well?  Whatever number(s) we decide to use, I think we should say "up
to" or "no more than".  For example:  "Each SG and the the NCAs as a
group may nominate up to three people for slots 5 & 6."  That would
allow them to nominate less if they so desired but would also put a cap
on the the total number of nominations for 5 and 6.  My personal
preference would be to limit it to two at the most; one might be okay
from each group.
                 
                 

                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/] 
                
                [Gomes, Chuck] If an SG decides to give its Councilors
discretion, that is their buiness and that would still fulfil the
request to give their Councilors direction. 

                Maybe I'm just over thinking this stuff?  [Gomes, Chuck]
I think it is useful that you are Bill.  We may have to hope some things
turn out okay without any changes but we also may be able to provide
some clarity in other cases.  If nothing else, we will be able to say
that we considered the issues. 

                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.
                [Gomes, Chuck] I am assuming that the ET would start its
work as soon as possible after the Council meeting on 18 February.  They
first of all will need to develop their work plan  Applications could be
received as early as the 19th so some of the individual review and
analysis could begin on early applications soon after they are received.
It is a fact that the timeframe is rediculously short and even shorter
if too many people cannot do a call on the 26th.  I am not opposed to
doing a call on the 27th; if it looks like we need to consider that
after we see the Doodle results for the 25th & 26th, then we can do a
new Doodle. 

                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.] 
                
                [Gomes, Chuck]  Definitely ironic.  :)  I just sent a
reminder to Glen and Gisella to do the Doodle.
                 

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