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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Bill,
 
I've inserted some comments
 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich  

 


  _____  

Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. Februar 2010 21:26
An: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22G=E9ry_de_Saint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; _Glen=22?=
Betreff: 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)


ok! 

14 March (hopefully earlier, e.g. after constituency day)
[WUK: ] Earlier would be better. I'm still on travel with no E-Mail
access 
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
[WUK: ] The weekend after the Nairobi meeting shall be hard to organize
coordination on that topic since people are travelling. I'll be ready on
15 March again. 

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.  


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?

*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?

*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.


[WUK: ] The
<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-03feb10-en.htm>
Updated Call for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer Review Team
Member on the ICANN website should be clear for potential applicants.



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...)
[WUK: ]  All SG candidates on top of the ones nominated for the SG slots
shall be given a second chance.
 

*how many candidates there can be for the unaffiliated slot (if we want
a limit, or parity with the other)

*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.  
[WUK: ] The ET could try to file a recommendation along the general
ICANN and specific GNSO criteria

*how the ET will do the diversity thing if the first round fails on that
score

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?


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.] <outbind://79/#_ftn1> [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


  _____  

 <outbind://79/#_ftnref1> [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
***********************************************************






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