<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some Ambiguities to Clean Up?
- To: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some Ambiguities to Clean Up?
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:31:43 -0500
Bill,
I agree that we didn't reach closure in the DT. That is why we
suggested that amendments be proposed as soon as possible before the
Council meeting, but I have not seen any yet (but still going through my
email from last night). It will make it a lot easier if "any tweaks to
the langusge" are proposed early enough for us to check with our
respective groups.
Chuck
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:07 AM
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some Ambiguities to Clean Up?
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] <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
***********************************************************
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|