[gnso-arr-dt] RE: Finalizing the RT process

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

Please see my comments and questions below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 4:42 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz
        Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Finalizing the RT process
        
        
        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:[Gomes, Chuck]  If applicants 
are referred to the GNSO directly, we probably need to develop a GNSO 
application process: where to send applications; processing procedures; are 
affiliated applications handled the same way as unaffiliated with regard to 
qualification vetting; who determines whether qualifications are met; do SGs 
have to nominate someone from the qualified candidates? 

        *Applicants must meet the extra GNSO qualification requirements to be 
fully considered (anyone think we need to tweak these? They seem unproblematic 
to me..)[Gomes, Chuck]  I am okay with the qualifications we listed but am open 
to discuss them again.  Which ones are problematic? 
        *Each SG nominates/endorses one[Gomes, Chuck]  Agree  (and as we've 
seen, all the other names do go to the Selectors, and get listed on the 
website)[Gomes, Chuck]  Don't understand what this means. We might want to 
confirm that this will happen if applicants are first referred to SOs and ACs 
in the next request for volunteers. 
        *A majority voted unaffiliated slot [Gomes, Chuck]  Simple majority of 
each house. If more than one candidates receive simple majority support of each 
house, it seems to me that it would be okay to submit more than one name 
forward. And if no candidate receives a simple majority of both houses, then we 
do not send any unaffiliated names forward. 
        *An ET reviews the unaffiliated applications and gives the council 
advice (consensus if it can be reached, listing of SG preferences if 
not)[Gomes, Chuck]  Should the ET be the group that determines qualified 
candidates?  For both affiliated and unaffiliated? 
        *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)[Gomes, Chuck]  I'm okay with this. 

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

        *Applicants must meet the extra GNSO qualification requirements to be 
fully considered [Gomes, Chuck]  Agree. 
        *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[Gomes, Chuck]  Does this 
mean that candidates we identify as unqualified also go to the Selectors?  If 
so, that doesn't make sense to me.  Even if it only means that qualified names 
go forward, I am opposed to sending all qualified candidates forward for two 
reasons: 1) it minimizes the meaning of GNSO endorsement; 2) it makes the job 
of the Selectors more difficult.  At the same time, I support the idea of 
giving the Selectors a slate of candidates that is larger than the number of 
slots so that they have some flexibility. 
        *Diversity is a matter left to the Selectors, at the RT level, rather 
than handled by us at the GNSO level[Gomes, Chuck]  I think we should make best 
efforts to submit a diverse slate as in the last bullet in 1 above.  We don't 
have to be rigid. 

        (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[Gomes, Chuck]  I 
fear that the slate of candidates might become too big in some instances. 
        *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[Gomes, Chuck]  Agree. 
        *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[Gomes, Chuck]  Agree. 
        *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[Gomes, Chuck]  I support the possibility of having as 
many unaffiliated slots as get simple majority support of both houses. 
        *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[Gomes, Chuck]  
Agree. 

        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