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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I support Bill's conclusions, too 


Regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von Tim Ruiz
Gesendet: Montag, 17. Mai 2010 23:55
An: Gomes,Chuck
Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx; William Drake
Betreff: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] RT Permanent Endorsement Process


I agree.

Tim 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] RT Permanent Endorsement Process
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, May 17, 2010 4:43 pm
To: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

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