<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some Ambiguities to Clean Up?
- To: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>, "Marco Lorenzoni" <marco.lorenzoni@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some Ambiguities to Clean Up?
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:20:44 -0500
Thanks Bill. Very good suggestion on the timeline. Your dates look good
below; I added some comments to add clarify where I thought it would be
helpful.
I also inserted some responses about the clean ups.
I added Marco to deal with Bill's last comments regarding the ICANN
site.
Chuck
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 3:26 PM
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22G=E9ry_de_Saint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
_Glen=22?=
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some Ambiguities to Clean Up?
Hello,
Returning after a day largely away from the computer (highly
recommended) a couple last odds and ends occur to me. Maybe I'm being
finicky and none of this actually matters, but I'm wondering if it's
possible someone somewhere might get confused....
1. Publicizing the Time Line
Glen has sent SG chairs the note about the motion passing and
pointers to the docs, but to understand what happens when, some people
might get lost flipping between the motion, Action Plan, and various
emails updates sent along the way referring to different dates. Perhaps
now that the dust has settled it would make sense to post on the GNSO
website and/or include in a follow up message to chairs a clear and
simple time line? Is the below our collective understanding?
7 March
Applications Due at ICANN, rtcandidatures@xxxxxxxxx (although
the call says to apply via an SO/AC)
[Gomes, Chuck] We should be clear that applications should be
sent to ICANN and should include the GNSO requested information.
14 March (hopefully earlier, e.g. after constituency day)
SGs to notify GNSO Secretariat of their nominations and provide
guidance to their Councilors on votes for the two slots
14 March
Evaluation Team is to report to Council on its assessment (which
may not be able to take into consideration the SG's nominations). NB:
The motion says this will happen not later than 10 March or 14 March,
which might confuse people, but unless the pool's quite shallow it's a
fair bet the ET will not be done the 10th
[Gomes, Chuck] We should say 14 March as the deadline but
encourage earlier completion if possible.
15-17th March
Council call to vote. It'd be good to announce the actual date
in a timeline asap. Hopefully we can do it the 15th or 16th since if
the result is poor with respect to diversity and there are options to
correct, the ET will have to figure something out rather quickly in
consultation with the SGs in order to get council sign off and send to
Janis and Peter the 17th.
[Gomes, Chuck] As I recall the motion said the 15th or 16th and
the Doodle poll only used those two dates, leaving the 17th open in case
needed.
2. Clean Ups
*The motion as passed lists several possible dates for the ET
deliverables and council call. This might confuse someone who later
looks at this and not the finalized timeline. Is it procedurally
possible to clean up the motion post hoc, or do we leave as is?
[Gomes, Chuck] Procedurally we cannot change the motion but in
our instructions, timeline, etc. we may communicate specific dates as
soon as we know them.
*The process and action plan docs living on the web have URLs
dated 10 February and showing them as "drafts" and "proposals," but were
amended and finalized after that date. I believe earlier versions with
stuff redlined etc also were circulated as 10 February, and someone
might have saved or otherwise stumble across these somewhere. Might it
make sense to, e.g., replace
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-endnominees-process-proposal-10feb10-e
n.pdf with something indicating this is final?
[Gomes, Chuck] Definitely yes. Glen - will you take care of
this if it hasn't already been done? I believe that I sent the final
edits.
*ICANN still has up at
http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicants-11jan10-
en.pdf the call for apps saying, inter alia,
"This is a permanent call for applications; however,
candidatures for the first review 'Accountability and Transparency' will
be accepted until the 17th of February 2010 at midnight UTC...
Applicants for this review will be informed of the result of
their application by (tentatively) the 20th of February 2010...
Selected members of the first review team (Accountability and
Transparency) will meet in person on the margins of the ICANN meeting in
Nairobi (7 to 12 March 2010), if present."
None of which is true anymore. And this,
"Expected starting dates of the first round of reviews are:
1. Accountability and transparency - April 2010"
Sounds a tad optimistic now.
[Gomes, Chuck] Marco - will you take care of the above on the
ICANN site as possible?
3. DT and ET
How do we see the division of labor between the ET and DT with
respect to outstanding issues? Internal ET work process questions are
of course for the ET, but there are some larger unresolved matters that
will affect their activities which were previously being tackled in the
DT for recommendation to the council. In practical terms it's probably
not a big issue in terms of carrying on prior conversations, inter alia
because the memberships overlap a good deal (well, there's about a half
dozen more folks in the DT, and Adrian wasn't here for the fun), but I
don't know whether there'd be any issues in terms of GNSO procedural
correctness/mandates etc...?
For example, we did not decide either in the DT or on the
Council call
*how many candidates each SG can nominate for the open slot (I
thought I'd seen a follow up message from Chuck to the SG chairs
removing the brackets on up to two, but can't find it...)
[Gomes, Chuck] The approach I recommended to the RySG is to
select a primary candidate and, if possible, one or two alternates from
a different geographic region and of a different gender. Can't say for
sure whether that will happen or not, but I stated that might make it
easier for the Council and the Selectors in this process.
*how many candidates there can be for the unaffiliated slot (if
we want a limit, or parity with the other)
[Gomes, Chuck] At this late date, the most feasible approach may
be to just let each SG and the NCAs identify the ones they would support
out of the total pool.
*what the core mandate of the ET is...we opted not to lock in
"ranking" by definition and went for the TBD "assess"...and how this'll
be done.
[Gomes, Chuck] As I remember it, we decided to give the ET as
much flexibility as possible in terms of what they do. As a minimum, I
think they need to identify candidates who they believe qualify and
those who they believe do not meet the qualifications, and in the latter
case explain why. Beyond that, I think it is up to the ET and how much
time they have. Anything they can do that they think would help the
Council is welcome including stronger recommendations of candidates if
they come to agreement in that regard.
*how the ET will do the diversity thing if the first round fails
on that score
[Gomes, Chuck] It's going to be hard for the ET to do this
unless they get the SG endorsements early; if they do not get the SG
endorsements early, then this may need to be handled by the Council on
the 15th or 16th.
Do we just shift everything from DT=>ET now, let the ET figure
out all the above, and reboot the DT in April vis the long-term RT
approach?
[Gomes, Chuck] Probably but anything the DT can do to assist the
ET seems like a good idea to me (i.e., what you have done here Bill).
Thanks,
Bill
On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:54 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've added my comments to Kristina's and Bill's again
already sent on Feb. 11. Maybe it went lost.
Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Februar 2010 13:32
An: William Drake; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Some Ambiguities to Clean Up?
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.
[WUK: ] I 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.
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.
[WUK: ] Agree
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.
[WUK: ] There will be no perfect
mechanism. Trust the ET!
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.
[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.
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.
[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.
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.
[WUK: ] You do an excellent job!
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.
[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.][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
***********************************************************
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|