[gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

To my regret, it occurs to me that there are some loose ends.

1.  The DT alas has another task we've not addressed, namely a proposal to the 
council on how the voting for RT slots 5 and 6 will be conducted.  All we've 
said is that a majority of the two houses is needed.  So ok, the ET allocates 
to 5 and 6 the candidates that have not been claimed by a SG for one of the 
four assigned slots, we have a list of let's say 6 people for the "open" slot 
and two for the "unaffiliated" slot (or pick your numbers...but I think 
there'll be more of the former than the latter), which it has ranked somehow 
and maybe made a rec on, and then we vote.  And let's say that on the first 
round no one person gets a majority of both houses for one or both of these.  
Then what?  We're on the call, the clock's ticking, do we just say ok let's try 
that again and hope that on the second round people shift from any candidates 
that didn't get much support and clearly won't make it to ones that did 
reasonably well and could get to majority with a little added oomph?  And if 
that doesn't work, do a third, fourth...?  I'm imagining councilors on the call 
getting a little impatient and grumpy...(If instead there's a tie, that's 
clearer, we break on diversity and total votes).

Before we go about inventing the wheel, can some veterans here say if/how the 
council has handled such things in the past?  Is there a model to follow or 
adapt?

2.  And of course the additional wrinkle is diversity.  Let's say we go through 
the exercise, nobody's been willing to change their votes much in a way that 
will produce a list of up to six in which  no more than two nominees come from 
the same geographical region and the nominees are not all of the same gender 
and/or have a distribution between genders no greater than two-thirds to 
one-third. We said the ET will consult with the stakeholder groups and NomCom 
appointees to review the candidate pool, present to the Council an alternative 
mix that would meet the goals, and the Council would vote on the new list.  
This presumes a) the ET can work out a list quickly that councilors will feel 
they can vote on again without lengthy consults with their SGs and b) we can 
quickly schedule another call to vote before the delivery deadline of the 17th. 
 Should we cross this bridge if we come to it, or think through how we'll deal 
with it?  Frankly, I really hope that people will build in diversity at the 
front end enough that we don't have to take these steps...with future RTs the 
time frame will be more conducive, but this time...

3.  Looking at the candidates so far an issue is raised by Victoria's app.  I 
guess this is ultimately the ET's call but the DT set the framework and the 
more voices the merrier from a consensus standpoint, so I'll ask here and am 
copying Adrian as well.  Victoria says, "Applicant was previously a member of 
the NCUC and is currently a member of the IPC. Applicant identifies with 
neither Constituency nor their respective Stakeholder Groups. Applicant wishes 
to be considered independent."  The DT didn't contemplate situations in which 
someone simultaneously declares (both on her app and on her personal website) 
but sort of denounces an affiliation for the purpose of the election.  I don't 
know her motives so won't address the particular case, but there's a general 
matter of principle.  If an applicant is known (and even declared) to be in a 
SG, they should be considered for the "open" slot, not the "unaffiliated" slot, 
no?  That's certainly how I understood the collective intent when we discussed 
the allocation procedure, but thought maybe I should confirm now rather than 
having the ET try to figure this out quickly on the 11th call.  Otherwise we 
could have people trying to game things, e.g. figuring well getting SG backing 
might be hard and there's less competition in the unaffiliated slot so I'd like 
to stand there regardless of my involvements.  To put the point in technicolor, 
say Marilyn or Milton put their hats in the ring as unaffiliated; would we just 
say ok, if that's what you want...?

Best,

Bill