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

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

Good questions and comments Bll.  More comments below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 8:11 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some Ambiguities to Clean Up?
        
        
        Hi 

        Comments below

        On Feb 12, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


                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.  

        Sorry to be slow here, but not sure I understand how you folks
see this working.  When the secretariat passes along the applications, I
assumed unaffiliates would be thrown into the pot for #5, per Kristina
below.  Affiliated would be thrown into the pot for #6.  There would
then be two lists, and the houses would vote simple majority on each
(and if they vote differently, this would have to be reconciled through
a mechanism we've not identified to get to the one person).  So what
could totally open mean if we've allocated like this?  De facto, #6 ends
up affiliated.
        [Gomes, Chuck] I was assuming that all applications from
volunteers seeking GNSO endorsement would be sent to everyone.  From
those, we would only need to identify unaffiliated applicants. Slot 5 is
really the only restricted slot; it cannot be someone who is affiliated
with an SG.  All the others, including those endorsed by SGs essentially
have no restrictions except those related to qualifications and
diversity. 

        Or, are you saying we don't throw them into pots and have
separate lists, and just do simple majority selection of the top two
irrespective of whether they're (un)affiliated?  This I believe would be
unfair to unaffiliateds, they have to compete with SG-backed candidates
that have a built in bloc of voters behind them.  I think unaffiliateds
should compete only with other unaffiliateds in #5.
        [Gomes, Chuck] Agree.  
        

                                 
                                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.  

        Right.  Who's we, the ET?  
        [Gomes, Chuck] We either means the ET or the Council or both and
can even mean the SGs and NCAs depending on what amendments may be made
to the motion and the plan.


                                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.  

        Not sure, below.
        

                                
                                
                                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.

        I agree there should be an up to limit for #6 and a priori think
lower is better, it puts the onus on the SGs to make more of a first
cut, leaves the council with a manageable number to consider in a short
time frame.  If we set it at 1, council then has a quite manageable pool
to vote on.  Though then it's not obvious we need the ET to rank,
assess, whatever.  If we set it at 2, that give us a potential pool of
8, which makes the voting a little complicated-maybe nobody gets a
simple majority on the first round-unless the ET is actually tossing
people out of the pool, which strikes me as potentially problematic.
        [Gomes, Chuck] If we go with the ET, I support giving the ET the
flexibility to decide how much they can do with the understanding that
they must at a minimum report on whether or not candidates meet the
qualifications and, if not, state why.  If they do more than that, fine,
but I am not sure they will have time.  I see not problem with the ET
identifying candidates that they do not think meet the qualifications
provided they explain why.  If nobody gets a simple majority in the
first round, then we could do a runoff with the highest vote getters.
Also, keep in mind that we are saying the GNSO may endorse up to six
candidates, so if we cannot get a simple majority of each house, we
could end up endorsing less than six.

        As for #5, my first thought was there'd not be too many
unaffiliateds so they'd all go to a vote without needing any filtering
or nominations.  I still suspect that numbers are not going to be big,
but maybe we have to define procedures applicable to all scenarios.
Even if so, the idea of SGs nominating for the unaffiliated slot seems
questionable to me.  SGs would be powerfully incented to favor people
who they see as closer/friendlier to their interests rather than truly
independent (that'll apply also to the voting stage, inevitably, but why
add insult to injury).  The whole idea of the category is for people who
don't see themselves as part of an SG, so how could we require them to
be endorsed by same?  Unless we want to boldly redefine the concept of
representative democracy... One can also imagine that if this were the
model, unaffiliateds would have extra incentives to spend time trying to
game theorize and align themselves with a bloc.  Too much monkey
business.  As for NCAs nominating, that strikes me as unworkably
asymmetric.
        [Gomes, Chuck] Whether we call it endorsing or not, the SGs will
have to direct their Councilors what unaffiliated candidates they should
support, if any, or give the Councilors freedom to act on their own with
or without guiding principles.  So I don't see how to get around the
problem you cite. 

        In the end, I don't think nominations work for #5.  In which
case the only options would be a) let the entire pool stand and trust
the electoral voting process to arrive at one person, or b) empower the
ET to assess and cull in order to get to a group that's the same size as
the group standing for #6, whether that's four or eight (I believe there
should be at least rough symmetry if possible).  As the ET culling also
raises issues, especially if it only did it for one slot and not the
other, I'm inclined to let 'em all stand and let the best person win a
simple majority.  The ET can rank if the pool's too big for council to
think clearly about in a short time frame, but the voters should do the
culling.
        [Gomes, Chuck] I never saw it as nominations for slot 5 or 6 but
rather SG direction to Councilors on which ones to support. 

                                 
                                 

                                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. 

        SGs can do it however they want.  Councilors can say have a look
at the list and tell me what to do, or they can say you sent me here,
trust me.
        


                                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. 

        I guess, and anyway some of these considerations may resurface
when we consider a long term plan.
        


                                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.

        Ok, but they still can't finalize anything until the SG
nominations are in, very short.

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



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