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

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

Very sorry to hear about your mother Bill. 

 Do we have a volunteer to take the lead on this?  

Chuck


----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri Apr 30 07:14:06 2010
Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Finalizing the RT process


Hi

On Apr 28, 2010, at 5:39 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> 2. If there are less than four seats, each SG endorses a candidate.
> Those four candidates go to the Council for a vote. The top X vote
> getters are forwarded to the Selectors. If after two/three rounds of
> voting it cannot be narrowed down to X, then the remaining cadidates are
> all sent to the Selectors and they decide.

I guess I'm a bit confused, Tim.  Before your concern was that by only 
nominating one per SG we were not giving the selectors enough choices, hence 
SGs should be able to nominate multiple people.  Now you're suggesting giving 
them no choice by narrowing in council the four (or 5, or more, depending on 
the unaffiliated decision) down to whatever number of GNSOers they intend to 
include. And through a competitive electoral process that would once again 
engender extra inter-SG politics, coalition building, post hoc grumbling, 
etc...probably more so than the multiple nominations would have.

Why not just drain the high blood pressure out of all this and have each SG put 
up its person and let the selectors pick from them in accordance with the 
overall balance they are trying to achieve on a given RT?   If one or more SGs 
don't get taken on board that RT, presumably the selectors would take this into 
account the next time around. 

> It does not address the gender/geographic issue, but personally I think
> if we try to address that it will just end up being used as a red
> herring and I don't see anyone else, including the Selectors, getting
> too excited about it.

If true, this is not a great comment on ICANN and its sensitivity to kinds of 
things governments and others from around the world will be saying about it 
inter alia here in Geneva during the upcoming IGF, ITU WSIS Forum, and CSTD 
meetings.  Anyway, the motion can specify whatever people want and if in the 
end not all SGs vote for it, the world will go on.

On another note:  We got word in the wee hours that my 87 year old mother has 
passed away after several years of struggle with severe Alzheimer's and 
dementia, so we am just back from a morning at the airport qne are leaving for 
Chicago tomorrow morning.  With all this entails, I will be pretty much off the 
grid until returning to Geneva for the IGF meeting on the 10th-11th.  As such, 
I'm afraid someone else is going to have to take over chairing and lead 
drafting of whatever goes to Council on the 12th.  I'm very sorry about this, 
but it can't be helped.

Best,

Bill