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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At the risk of sounding a bit finicky, Glen's distribution of two proposals 
yesterday and the message I just sent Council in reply lead me to think that 
we've not really reached closure in the DT on how apps will be allocated.  
Maybe I'm the only one who's not clear...either way please bear with me, as on 
the Council call we may need to explain this and to decide on any tweaks to the 
language.  I'm leaving the whole thread intact here so please scroll down for 
new comments.

On Feb 12, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.  

If any and all unaffiliated go to #5, it still seems to me that by default, #6 
ends up being for affiliated.  If this is the wrong conclusion, someone please 
explain it to me slowly.  If it is wrong, and unaffiliated can also go to #6, 
then don't we need to determine how we'd decide between the two?  If it is 
right, is that what we want—Kristina raised the point about whether the 
possibility of wiring it so that one of the SGs will get two nominees might not 
raise concerns, which seems a fair point.
>>  
>> 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. 

Ok, it's sensible to say that applicants who clearly fall into one of the SG 
pots don't get to say no I'd like to be considered unaffiliated in order to 
compete in a shallower pool.  So I presume this mean that an applicant goes 
into the SG pot whether they or the SG would prefer it or not?  For example, 
Eric and Victoria didn't know to specify which SG if any they want the support 
of (as I said on the Council list, I think it'd help if applicants are asked to 
do so, to provide a first cut indication...but we're presumably not bound by 
that, since they could say none when we know better), so do we say Eric goes in 
the registrar pot and Victoria in the CSG pot?  Or are their identities more 
complex than that?  Obviously, we need to sort apps on the merits rather than 
any strategic calculations..

> 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.
*So do I conclude from this that we want to say that each SG can nominate up to 
two for the #6 (the brackets in Chuck's message to SG chairs), meaning that 
there can be up to eight candidates, or say up to 1 and  hence 4?
*And for #5, no limits, or parity?
> 
> 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]
>>> 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] 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
>> ***********************************************************
>> 
>>