[gnso-arr-dt] RE: Permanent Review Team Process

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for getting this started Bill.  Your ideas seem like a very good
starting point for our work.  I personally think your reasoning makes a
lot of sense.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 3:02 AM
> To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: Permanent Review Team Process
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 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?
> 
> Bill
>