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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

Thanks Chuck and Wolf for the responses.  Ok, let's get the date for the 
Council call locked in and then circulate the complete time line via email and 
the web site.  Marco has written that they will update the call for apps on the 
main ICANN site.  Re: DT and ET, 

On Feb 21, 2010, at 10:20 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

snip
> 
> *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. 
Ok, so we tell SG up to two for the open slot, ja?  This should be restated in 
the next outreach.
> 
> *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. 
Ok, probably there won't be a huge number, and if that proves untrue the ET 
assessment can help.  I guess there's no real need for parity between #5 and #6 
as long as the pools are separately voted.
> 
> *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.  
Ok so ET has wide latitude to define it all.  I wasn't clear how this works 
under GNSO procedures, if it needed a Council approved charter etc.  Since it's 
simply making an advisory rec rather than a decision I suppose/hope nobody will 
balk post hoc if they don't like the assessment.
> 
> *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. 
Play it by ear
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>