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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

I'll modify my proposal based on Wolf's and Bill's comments and resubmit
to the group later today. Hope that will help.

Tim 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Finalizing the RT process
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, April 30, 2010 7:04 am
To: <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>, 
<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>

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