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

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for this Bill.
 
I also like Tim's approach of submitting names with support levels
indicated in the event that we cannot come up with a result through
voting [I only saw Tim's email after I had sent my response yesterday].
 
As regards allocation, perhaps we take this on a case by case basis,
combining both my approach and Tim's approach. It is difficult to
predict every scenario. However, I am wondering how we would deal with
Eric since he really is in a bind....one option would be to go back and
ask for his preference at this time?
 
Caroline.
 
From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: 03 March 2010 09:57
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Adrian Kinderis
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues
 
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