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

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Wolf-Ulrich,

The gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx> has not been shut down. 
What address are you sending from?

Thanks,

Glen

From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: dimanche 21 février 2010 22:39
To: william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx; 
owner-gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22G=E9ry_de_Saint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Glen de Saint 
Géry; cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Some Ambiguities to Clean Up?

It seems that the distribution list 
gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx> has been shut down. So I 
added the new ET list. Hope this works


Wolf-Ulrich


________________________________
Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. Februar 2010 22:32
An: 'William Drake'; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22G=E9ry_de_Saint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; _Glen=22?=
Betreff: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Some Ambiguities to Clean Up?
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<mailto: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-en.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 Updated Call for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer Review 
Team Member<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-03feb10-en.htm> 
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<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>> 
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[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<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:07 AM
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
[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<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 12:32 PM
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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][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

________________________________
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<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<http://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<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************


________________________________