AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Finalizing the RT process

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

See my comments below
 


Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 


  _____  

Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Samstag, 24. April 2010 17:34
An: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Tim Ruiz; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Finalizing the RT process


Hi 

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;
[WUK: ] I agree with Chuck

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? 
[WUK: ] The benefit could be broader GNSO participation in the process
development. During the 1st round there was a lot of trouble to convince
people in the GNSO community of what the council and its related teams
were suggesting. So one of the lessons learned is: providing even more
transparency - and getting more people involved. E.g. on the GNSO
webpage there is already an AoC wiki established but empty.

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 already...

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
[WUK: ] I think the requirement of 10 hrs/week commitment let potential
applicants hold back their applications. It seems to me too much, and
you know yourselves that the amount of work is going to vary over the
working period.


*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
http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-1-applications-en.htm
.  Per 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.
[WUK: ] Ok with that. BTW: what is IMHO (In My Homemeade Opinion??) 

*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).
[WUK: ] Again, that's a matter of having the basic conditions solid from
the beginning (e.g. number of GNSO seats per RT) and of transparency
(see wiki).


*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.
[WUK: ] Just giving advice if necessary. 


*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.


Great




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. [WUK: ] subject to review (see
above). 
*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 the qualifications).


*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?

Thanks

BD


*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



 



***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************