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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gisella sent out a reminder on the Doodle poll last week so hopefully so
hopefully we can finalize that this week.  I also have asked Liz and/or
Margie to give an opinion on whether we could to an email vote for those
who cannot make the special call.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
        Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 3:47 AM
        To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some Ambiguities to Clean Up?
        
        
        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