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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

1. I could see us doing a second round of voting, but if we don't get
agreement we should just submit the apps noting the support that each
received.

2. I think meeting the diversity requirements within the group that we
put forward will be difficult and we shouldn't get too caught up in
that. Again, we just submit what we have with the relevant support for
each noted.

3. This is about GNSO endorsement. Whether we endorse a candidate or not
they could still be considered for selection, right? So I think if
someone is a member of, or represents a member of, a particular
constituency or SG they should be sloted that way whether they request
it or not. But whether we do it that way or not, I am not concerned
about gaming. If one house or SG sees an applicant as attempting to game
it is doubtful they will get the necessary majority of both Houses to
receive GNSO endorsement.


Tim
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues
From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, March 02, 2010 4:40 am
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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 inte!
nt 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