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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

I.  VOTING

On Mar 2, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Caroline Greer wrote:

> 
> For Problem No 1 that Bill identifies - perhaps the ET should work on a
> rank order of candidates for each slot - eg we give our top 3
> preferences - so that we can work down that list if our first
> recommendation does not give us a result with the Counsel. If at the end
> of that process no agreement is met, I think we would just have to pass
> over that slot, albeit regrettably

On Mar 2, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
>  In that regard, if we are unable to
> achieve a simple majority support of each House for an endorsement for
> either or both slots after reasonable effort, then we do not need to
> endorse anyone for the slot(s).  

Sure, technically we could elect nobody to the two slots and just go with the 
SG allocated ones.  However, this would be unfair to candidates who are a) 
unaffiliated or b) identifiably with a SG but for whatever reason weren't 
chosen for the allocated slots.  Then we'd effectively be saying that the only 
way to get a GNSO endorsement set to Janis and Peter is have obtained the 
backing of a SG for its allocated slot. The result could be viewed as 
essentially SG collusion that locks out outsiders/challengers, and I'm not sure 
that's the message we want to send (for an accountability/transparency 
exercise, no less).  

Indeed, there could be perverse incentives here; speaking game theoretically 
(I'm not saying anyone in particular would actually do this), since voters know 
their SG will anyway get its favored person, someone might think why should I 
want majority winners for the elected slots, they're not my SG's top choice, 
and they just dilute the pool the Selectors pick from and reduce our person's 
chances.  Hence I'll vote in a manner that precludes a winner and won't 
compromise with others to find a solution if no majority emerges.   So if the 
rule signals at the outset that a failed vote is an option, it could increase 
the likelihood of failure. If instead it says if there's a failure we redo 
until we get to yes, there's an incentive to compromise and maybe let through 
someone who's not one's first preference.  

The same goes for achieving diversity: the agreed process is that if there's a 
first round failure, the ET works out something to up the diversity level and  
"The Council would vote on the new list, with a simple majority of both houses 
required for acceptance. If the vote fails, the cycle will repeat until there 
is a successful outcome."   Bottom line, requiring repetition until success 
would be an anti-gaming (or at least gaming attenuation), pro-openness stance.  

On Mar 2, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> 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.

If we do not do iterative voting, Tim's approach strikes me as fairest way to 
treat the applicants, much better than saying sorry, you don't even get a shot 
at being considered and losing to someone.  Just a little more for the 
Selectors to read through.  Who knows, they might appreciate having more 
options to pick from.


II. DIVERSITY

On Mar 2, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Caroline Greer wrote:
> 
> Still thinking through diversity....


On Mar 2, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 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.

But this is not the process we agreed to and announced externally.  The 
requirements we set out are rather paltry---no more than two nominees come from 
the same geographical region, nominees not all of the same gender, a 
distribution between genders no greater than two-thirds to one-third.  Failing 
to meet these would require a scenario like 5 guys and no or 1 woman, and three 
USians out of six.  Surely a body that is supposed to represent all sectors the 
world over can do better than this.  It is not a matter of quality vs political 
correctness, there are undoubtedly qualified people in all our communities that 
merit support; if there are not, hopefully this process will occasion some 
reflection on how to improve.  And bear in mind that the AOC specifically 
requires diversity, and that Peter and Janis (being sensitive to such things) 
will be looking for it in order to avoid bad press, criticisms from the ITU, 
etc.

=> If the voting on the two slots failed after two rounds and we took Tim's 
approach of just sending all the names, with the ET input but without formal 
council endorsements, that would at least square the circle on this point 
somewhat as the pool of unsolicited apps already has internationals and women.  
Then we wouldn't have to do the ET reconciliation process called for in our 
procedures doc.  Might be the path of least resistance; can people get behind 
this approach?  If so we can explain this at the open council meeting if people 
ask how this is being done (which someone very well could, which is why I'm 
pushing for us to have some sort of answer).

III.  AFFILIATIONS

On Mar 2, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Caroline Greer wrote:
> 
> As regards allocation and in the situation where someone opts not to
> associate themselves with an SG [Problem No.3], perhaps we should honor
> that option unless it is an absolutely ridiculous scenario - eg Caroline
> Greer [to use me as an example] decides not to associate herself with
> the RSG. In deciding not to associate themselves with an SG however,
> that person would be taking their chances based on the situation that
> may arise in the above paragraph.

On Mar 2, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> 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.

I agree with both of you, depending on where we set the threshold of Caroline's 
ridiculous scenario.  To me, someone who says I am an IPC member in her app and 
on her website but then says I want to stand as independent is such a scenario. 
 When we talked about allocation procedures we said if someone was known to be 
x we'd put them with x, full stop.  

Following that rule the apps received to date would be allocated as follows:

Eric Brunner-Williams  (Rgy or Rgr?  Not this time?)
* "My order of preference for the review areas is security and stability first, 
accountability & transparency second, competition third, and whois last."
*"I self-identify with the Registrar Constituency, and the Registry 
Constituency"
*USA, male

Brian Cute (Rgy)
*I self-identify with the GNSO - gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group 
*USA, male

S. S. Kshatriya  (Unaffiliated)
*Indian, male

Victoria McEvedy (CSG)
*UK, female

Hakikur Rahman (NCSG)
*Bangladesh, male

Olivier Muron (CSG)
France, male


From a distributional standpoint, not a bad starting point: pontentially all 
SGs + an independent,  2 US, 2 EU, 2 Asia, one woman.  Let's hope more filling 
it out come in by the 7th.  I know NCSG will have an African to add to the mix 
and maybe more...

Best,

Bill