[gnso-arr-dt] Finalizing the RT process

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello

On Apr 23, 2010, at 7:54 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> It would really help us if we can finish the DT work as early as possible in 
> May.

Indeed.  We agreed on the council call to shoot for a motion by May 12.  
Personally, I'll be jammed up with conferences & travel 4/29 − 5/2 and 
5/9-5/12, so my windows of opportunity to put bandwidth into this are today - 
Tuesday and the week of the 3rd.  Probably others here have similar or worse 
schedules, so we shouldn't let this linger or we could get jammed up at the 
back end...

Basically, not having heard other proposals, it seems we have two models on the 
table: 

1. A modification of what we did before:

*Applicants must meet the extra GNSO qualification requirements to be fully 
considered (anyone think we need to tweak these? They seem unproblematic to 
me..)
*Each SG nominates/endorses one (and as we've seen, all the other names do go 
to the Selectors, and get listed on the website)
*A majority voted unaffiliated slot 
*An ET reviews the unaffiliated applications and gives the council advice 
(consensus if it can be reached, listing of SG preferences if not)
*An ET takes at look at the 4-5 names that result and if there's wildly 
inadequate diversity (more than half from one region, 1 or less female) goes 
back to council and encourages reconsideration of the pool and hopefully 
adjustments to the list (although it'd be hard to actually compel any SGs to 
change their selections if they're really wedded to them—a best effort 
exercise, I guess)

2.  Tim's proposal (please correct me if I mangle, Tim):

*Applicants must meet the extra GNSO qualification requirements to be fully 
considered 
*Each SG can endorse one or more (# =?) and as now, all the other names do go 
to the Selectors, and get listed on the website
*Diversity is a matter left to the Selectors, at the RT level, rather than 
handled by us at the GNSO level

(I am unclear on one key dimension, Tim could you clarify: You said your model 
would "allows more applicants to be considered by the Selectors.  Otherwise, I 
am concerned that the only applicants we will get are those pre-ordained by the 
SGs - others won't see the point."  The selectors get all the names now, but 
each SG having endorsed one guided the selectors' decisions (although there's 
nothing that actually binds them to accepting the SGs' preferences).  In saying 
that the selectors would have more to consider, do you mean that a) the SG 
endorsements would be less normatively compelling, so that non-endorsed would 
be totally on the same footing as endorsed, or rather just that b) by allowing 
the SGs to endorse more than one there'd be more endorsed to choose from?  

So if I have this right, the differences are basically

*Whether SGs should be able to endorse more than one
*If a) above applies, whether the SG selections are at least normatively 
"binding" on the selectors, or rather all the names are on equal footing for 
selection, in which case the selectors have broader discretion in picking our 
reps
*Whether there should be a council-level process for endorsing an unaffiliated, 
or leave this to SGs' discretion
*Whether diversity should be pursued by the selectors at the RT level or by the 
council at the GNSO level

Again, my view is that 
*Each SG should get one, if they can pick multiple it becomes an inter-SG 
source of competition and contention
*SG endorsements should be viewed by the selectors as normatively binding 
unless they really feel we're off track, i.e. non-endorsed should not be viewed 
as on equal footing and the selectors shouldn't be deciding for us, or forced 
to work through all applications as if equal
*If possible, a single unaffiliated should be endorsed (if possible) at the 
council level, if we leave this at the SG level it again could spur inter-SG 
competition, loading up on people friendly to a particular SG's view, and hence 
asymmetries
*The council should take responsibility to promote diversity within its own 
ranks, rather than say nominating a bunch of US guys and leaving it to the 
selectors to get final balance e.g. via GAC or other SO/AC names

But that's just me.  And I guess I should add fwiw that NCSG would be extremely 
unlikely to support a process that would allow some SGs to endorse more people 
than other SGs, so we'd have a divided vote on the motion.

Anyway, we need to hear from more people which way they want to go...

Thanks,

Bill