[gnso-arr-dt] Permanent Review Team Process
- To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Permanent Review Team Process
- From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:02:20 +0200
Chuck has reminded me that the RT motion called for us to assemble a permanent
selection process in April. Council can of course extend this to May, it's not
super pressing given the schedule for the next RT, but probably we should start.
My inclination based on the first round experience would be to simplify the
thing as much as possible. The idea of having a sixth slot open to competition
seemed like a reasonable way to preclude any unhappiness among any SGs about
having only one shot, and to give the selectors more flexibility if they needed
it. Alas, the process generated much more tooth gnashing than expected (and
IMHO, than was merited). Given the angst, the thin value-added, and the fact
that the the selectors obviously found it attractive to just go with the SG
nominations, I would propose we eliminate this slot.
I tend to think we still need to have a slot for unaffiliated, even if most
cases the selectors will probably be reluctant to pick such a candidate over
those that got consensus within SGs. It wouldn't seem fair to me if people
from the GNSO community or outside experts who don't fit comfortably into one
of the boxes or have a strong shot at being selected by a SG have no hope of
even being considered for a RT. Also, this slot might again give us the option
of having at least some veneer of diversity. Dealing with this slot shouldn't
be too complex; the evaluation team review does a review of the options, makes
a rec or reports its members positions, then a majority vote, voila. It really
wasn't a big deal last time.
And of course the main bit would be that the four SGs continue to select their
own nominees through whatever internal mechanisms they deem fit.
As for diversity I recognize that we probably have to make the language a bit
more flexible as some SGs are likely to continue nominating USians, but
personally I still think it's reasonable to say that if the pool allows, GNSO's
nominees should be at least 1/3 women and 1/2 non-US (well, the language would
be more neutral, but effectively that's what we mean).
Oh and the idea of SGs "endorsing" candidates for the 5th/6th slots just
confused people, I'd dump it.
Four SG slots, one majority elected unaffiliated slot, with an ET to parse
unaffiliated candidates and lead on dealing with any massive diversity failures
seems straight forward enough to me.
What do others think?