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

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

That's a very good idea Tim.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:08 AM
> To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Re: Finalizing the RT process
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>