RE: [gnso-arr-dt] RT Permanent Endorsement Process

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

Very helpful thoughts Bill.  Thanks.  I could easily support your
conclusions and I think that the process should work even if we get less
than four slots for a RT.

 

Chuck

 

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 11:48 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] RT Permanent Endorsement Process

 

Hola

 

On May 17, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:





Wolf made one motion for the Council meeting on 20 May: That there be 4
GNSO slots on the two review teams.  It would be good if the Council is
able to act on that so that we can communicate it to Janis.  That would
possibly help the selectors finalize the size and composition of the
teams and it seems consistent with Chris Disspain's input which I
forwarded a little while ago and with the fact that early indicators
show that the size of the current RT seems to be working okay.

 

Can't imagine the counter-arguments from a council standpoint



 

I personally still like the idea of endorsing up to five instead of four
candidates but am not hard line about that.  Maybe it would be helpful
if Bill asked for some discussion of that in the Council meeting on
Thursday and encourage Councilors to provide any thoughts in that regard
in the week following the meeting.  If we endorse five slots, I think
the fifth slot should be totally open.  If we endorse four slots, I
think it should be made clear like Tim said, that that the SGs may
endorse anyone, not just candidates affiliated with their SG.

 

I guess it'd be useful to get broader council input on the prospect of
an additional slot.  Here FWIW is my view.

 

*My position at the outset was we needed to accommodate unaffiliated
GNSO community members and not look like a self-preservation cartel.
And indeed, we had a couple people apply for slot 5 who assumed
(correctly it turns out) they wouldn't have gotten any SG's top
endorsement, so that seemed like vindication of the idea.  But upon
reflection, I wonder if it's not an empty gesture, since the Selectors
will normally want to pick people who have strong SG support, inter alia
to avoid upsetting the political balance, and they're not going to give
us more than 4 slots on a RT.  Would they really tell SG xyz that sorry,
while the other three SGs get their representative, you don't, we're
taking instead this person who feels no connection to anyone.  Unless a
SG goes nuts and endorses someone really unsuitable, I don't see it
happening.  And bear in mind, the other SO/ACs are approaching this from
the standpoint of "our representatives," and the Selectors et al seem to
share that understanding.

 

Moreover, and to Wolf-Ulrich's point, this doesn't necessarily mean that
that an unaffiliated person, including a NCA, could never serve on a RT.
If they're good candidates it's entirely possible some SG will endorse
them, especially as the RT process goes on and on and burns through the
pool of in-house SG talent willing to put in the time and effort.  I'm
sure NCSG could support a good independent, especially after a few
cycles.

 

In which case, why go through all the hassle of defining ornate election
procedures and having an Evaluation Team to review and rank and then
organizing votes and all that other stuff?  Why not just simplify life
for everyone and just have a straightforward and completely
depoliticized process under which for each RT cycle each SG provides a
name and we're done with it?  It's not like Council doesn't have enough
and more important stuff to do anyway...

 

So I'm inclined toward Tim's streamlined proposal of 4 (with the
possibility of electing a fifth if there's inadequate diversity).  But
if the DT or Council really wants a fixed elected slot for
unaffiliateds, I'd roll with it, and we can then go about defining once
again all the possible procedural requirements to be spelled out.

 

I would however very much oppose making the fifth slot open to anyone.
Cave, hic dragones--anyone who was in Nairobi will know that the
prospect of a competitive slot that could result in a given SG having
two endorsees contributed to some people getting really worked up over
all this, far beyond what the real world significance of the selection
merited IMHO.  The many tense consultations and procedural explanations
this occasioned make me very allergic to needlessly creating busy work
and scarce positional goods for SGs to struggle over, internally and
externally.  





 

If we do not use the 25 minutes allotted in the Council meeting, that
will be very helpful because the agenda is way too full.  It appears
that our time crunch has improved some.  Janis seems to be comfortable
with a little more time.  But it would be good if we could have final
Council action on a long term process by the 10 June Council meeting if
possible.

 

Yes, routinely going over two hours is an issue, part of why I suggested
downsizing this.  Let's play it by ear but shoot for ten minutes...

 

Cheers

 

Bill

         

        Chuck

         

        From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:44 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
        Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] RT Permanent Endorsement Process

         

        Hi

         

        On May 16, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

        
        
        
        

                It appears we put the permanent process aside for the
moment to focus

                on

                the SSR and WHOIS per Janis.  So presumably we are
shooting for the 10

                June Council meeting, and need a motion by the 3rd,
three weeks from

                today.

        [Gomes, Chuck] We can't put the permanent process aside because
it is needed so that applicants for the SSR and Whois RTs know how to
apply and what the qualifications are.  You are correct though that we
first need to agree on the number of GNSO reps.  I think Wolf's motion
takes care of that, assuming we all agree with it.

         

        I wasn't suggesting we should do that going forward, but rather
was taking stock of the list discussion during the period I was offline.
So after giving Janis the number, the next step is to finalize a process
for the 10 June meeting.

         

                        Endorsement Process

                         

                        1.  Can a SG decide not to endorse any
candidate?  Can more than one SG

                        endorse the same person, e.g. someone not from
one's own SG?

         

        Everyone seems inclined to allow these flexibilities, although
again if ever they're acted upon we could fall short of the number of
slots requested per RT.  Presumably manageable.

         

        (BTW it would be logical for the process doc to state how many
slots GNSO is seeking to fill, I suppose four per, but we can't say that
until the Selectors agree to it.  Would be helpful if they'd decide and
announce the standard team sizes.)
        
        
        
        

                2.  Are people now inclined to abandon the concept of
having an

                Council-wide elected slot for people who consider
themselves to be in

                the GNSO community but not affiliated with/seeking the
endorsement of

                any particular SG? 

         

        I don't see consensus on this point.  We have two models on the
table, 4 vs 5 slots, need to decide.
        
        
        

                 

                3.  Re: diversity, in this model we'd only consider
adding people to

                move toward the objectives , rather than e.g. going back
to SGs and

                asking them to reconsider their first choice.

         

        People thus far seem inclined to possibly vote on adding another
person if needed, or to encourage SGs to consider alternative
endorsements, in either event at the Council level.

        
        
        
        

                a.  Would we still state the diversity objectives?

         

        Seems to be consensus for stating but softening, e.g. "should."
        
        
        

                 

                b.  I presume Council would only be able to pick from
the pool of

                people

                who applied to ICANN?  How many?  

         

        Seems to be consensus.  Can leave the number open TBD as needed.

         

                        c.  In this model, would we abandon the
Evaluation Team?  

         

        Only one person addressed directly but IF we stick with 4 SG
slots rather than 4 + 1 voted unaffiliated then this would make sense,
so have to decide the latter.

        
        
        
        

                Additional GNSO Requirements.

                 

                1.  In the first round we included in the in-house
Action Plan (below)

                the statement that "volunteers are encouraged to self-
identify with

                any

                GSNO SG / Constituency with which they feel most closely
affiliated."

                I

                suggest we move this encourgement to the Requirements,
where it should

                have been.

        
        Seems consensus, easy point
        
        
        

                 

                2.  In light of the ICANN CFP wording should we delete
the "attestation

                that the applicant is able and willing to commit at
least ten hours per

                week during the review period"?

         

        One yes and one no so far on this

        
        
        
        

                3.  It has been suggested that for the SSR RT some
indicator of

                security/tech expertise would be useful.  

         

        Consensus thus far for a line added about specialized expertise
relevant to the RT

        
        
        
        

                Action Plan

                 

                Our initial effort included a set of in-house
procedures.  Depending on

                what we decide about the process, will we still need to
have such a

                document?  

         

        I've not seen anyone argue we need this, although if we have a
slot 5 then the details previously covered in the AP should be
incorporated into the EP.
        
        
        

                 

                It would be really helpful to hear from all members of
the DT on these

                and any related points.  I see that the 20 May Council
agenda has 25

                minutes allocated to this topic and that I'm supposed to
convey the

                DT's

                recs, so any movement toward closure by then would be
great.

         

        We've heard from Chuck, Tim, Wolf-Ulrich and Caroline, which if
memory serves is like half the DT.  If the rest is ok, can we please
decide on 4 vs 5, i.e. separate space for unaffiliated or let them seek
SG support?  With this main point unsettled we're not ready to write a
doc.  Anyway, I'll be buried in the UN the next day and half, which
doesn't lend itself to quick word smithing.

         

        Chuck, given that we don't have a finalized process to propose
or a motion, what do you want to do about the Thursday agenda?  If we
really want to spend 25 minutes anyway I suppose we could discuss and
decide the # of slots issue in Council rather than the DT.  If instead
we want to get consensus here first then maybe this should be just a
five minute update thing and we can have the real discussion in June.

         

        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
***********************************************************