[gnso-arr-dt] Re: Finalizing the RT process
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Finalizing the RT process
- From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:33:39 +0200
Thanks for the feedback Chuck.
On Apr 24, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 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;
I was assuming we'd leave it as it is, apps go ICANN central => GNSO Sec, which
notifies the council list (and notes any self-identified affiliation) and posts
to the web. ICANN logs each and has a central record of (a responsibility for)
the files before distributing, the process is the same for all SO/ACs
(important, no?), and Glen is less burdened. Having them come direct and
devising separate processes adds complexity, but does it add benefits?
> are affiliated applications handled the same way as unaffiliated with regard
> to qualification vetting; who determines whether qualifications are met
Here too I was assuming we'd leave it as it is. The SGs review and decide on
applicants affiliated with them. Under the status quo plus (let's call it
model # 1) they select one person who they think meets the criteria, and the
selectors are urged to consider these, in which case the extent to which the
others meet the qualifications is less important (unless the selectors decide
to reject the SGs' preferences and take someone else, which normally would be a
surprise; I suppose just in case we could say that when notifying council of
their selection the SGs should also notify if any they reviewed don't meet the
requirements). Under Tim's (let's call model # 2) with multiple SG nominations
the same could be done, although I'm not completely clear per previous if the
idea is that non-endorsed are being forwarded to be considered by the selectors
on an equal footing, in which case their vetting obviously would need to be
more systematic and reported. Either way, the responsibility for most
applicant reviews is decentralized to the SGs, and the only centralized review
by the ET is of the unaffiliated applicants.
That said, I guess if we wanted to build a centralized process for reviewing
all apps between Glen's receipt and their web posting for Council/SG review,
this could be another ET function. But personally I'd rather not build
institutional machinery we don't really need. Council has more than enough
> do SGs have to nominate someone from the qualified candidates?
We told everyone last time that they are not compelled to nominate a SG slot
name or to elect slots 5 and 6 names if they just don't want to or can't agree.
You are right, we should have a sentence saying this explicitly (unless
someone thinks SGs/council should be required to).
> *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?
None in my view
> *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.
It means that last time all the apps went to central, and were listed on their
website with the nominees noted
above I didn't recall that we were interested in having GNSO take over the
initial receipt and processing. If we had apps sent to the GNSO sec instead
and then didn't forward the ones not endorsed, I would think this goes even
further in the direction Tim doesn't want, i.e. the Selectors/world don't even
see the names of people who bothered to apply but weren't endorsed. I might be
uncomfortable with that too, puts us in a rather strong power position vis.
potential nominees, might look bad and/or suppress application numbers.
Another reason to leave things as they are, IMHO: list all, but flag the ones
we want the selectors to choose from.
> *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.
Re: the latter, right, this was agreed after the motion but per above not
written down and now we should. Re: the former, that's new, before the
presumption was we were picking one from this pool. Doesn't this risk going in
the direction of longer lists that lessen the weight of the SG nominees in the
pool, particularly if we go with model 1? Imagine each SG is told they get one
but then three unaffiliateds gets voted in, would everyone be happy? What if
several of the unaffiliateds generally had views more favorable to one SGs'
positions than others and got majorities of both houses? I can't help
wondering whether this wouldn't introduce more politics, gaming, etc., or at
least fears thereof.
We should hear from others, but given the extent to which some SGs were getting
consumed with all kinds of unanticipated strategic calculating last time, I
personally would like to do everything possible to drain away options for
drama. (I have to admit I was pretty baffled by how some folks were getting
wound up on all this in Nairobi).
> *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?
See above. Not what we did last time, and it was fine.
> *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.
Chuck are you assuming here that we are indeed changing the process so that
apps go to GNSO rather than ICANN? And that we'd in effect just swallow any
names we deemed unqualified? If we keep the current process all "go" in the
sense they're before the selectors but some have been endorsed, and we could
additionally indicate if any don't meet the requirements (didn't come up last
time. although there was one candidate that enjoyed pan-SG distrust...still met
> *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.
I agree, but wouldn't the possibility you introduce of multiple unaffiliateds
being voted in go in that direction?
> *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
> *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...
William J. Drake
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and