[gnso-et] Re: Final Candidate list & process from here

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If Rgy is ok with deferring Eric to the RT he's most interested in, I can't see 
why we wouldn't honor that request.  So we can put him aside for now, yes?

The biggest item affecting eveyone near term is the allocation of Victoria.  
Again, all things being equal I'd have preferred to allocate based on known 
identification.  However in this rushed circumstance with a very thin pool 
containing only one woman, I believe the ET must have the flexibility to act in 
the interest of the process and that we hence allocate her to unaffiliated as 
she requests.  Then the council can at least vote on one woman!

Could people please say whether they're ok with that exception this time, so 
that NCSG knows what to do in it meeting tomorrow with respect to voting 
preferences.

And beyond that, CSG still has to sort out its to many bodies with the same 
demographic issue...

Best,

BD


On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Caroline Greer wrote:

> Thanks Bill.
> 
> I agree with that approach for Eric.
> 
> Caroline.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 08 March 2010 08:31
> To: Caroline Greer
> Cc: Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Final Candidate list & process from here
> 
> So the application period is now closed and we have ten candidates:
> 
> 
> Eric Brunner-Williams  (Rgy or Rgr?  Not this time?)
> * My order of preference for the review areas is security and stability
> first, accountability & transparency second, competition third, and
> whois last
> * I self-identify with the Registrar Constituency, and the Registry
> Constituency"
> * USA, male
> 
> Brian Cute (Rgy)
> * I self-identify with the GNSO - gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group
> * USA, male
> 
> Warren Adelman (Rgr)
> * I self-identify with the GNSO - Registrars Stakeholder Group
> * USA, male
> 
> Mike O'Connor (CSG)
> *USA, male
> 
> Ron Andruff (CSG)
> *USA, male
> 
> Olivier Muron (CSG)
> *France, male
> 
> Victoria McEvedy (CSG)
> *UK, female
> 
> Willie Curie (NCSG)
> *South Africa, male, NCUC member
> 
> Hakikur Rahman (NCSG)
> *Bangladesh, male
> 
> S. S. Kshatriya  (Unaffiliated)
> *Indian, male
> 
> Parsing the pool:
> 
> Rgy one and maybe two names, Brian and Eric.  I'm assuming RgySG will
> put Brian into the allocated slot, so we won't have to review, right?
> 
> Rg one and maybe two names, Warren and Eric.  I'm assuming RgSG will put
> Warren into the allocated, right?
> 
> =>Action item: we have to decide how we're allocating Eric and whether
> to hold him over for a future RT, S&S, his first preference.  I suggest
> we hold him over and ask him to decide on the SG by that time, unless
> you all have enough info to make that call independently.
> 
> CSG four names, Mike, Ron, Olivier, Victoria.  They will need to decide
> which is their allocated and which two are standing for the competitive
> slot.
> 
> NCSG two names, Willie and Hakikur.  Willie will be our allocated
> person.  We'll consult tomorrow on whether to endorse Haikkur for the
> competitive slot, he's not one our more active and known people.
> 
> Unaffiliated one name, Kshatriya.
> 
> => Action item: Once the four SG's ID their allocated people and
> identified their up to two for the competitive slots (Hopefully
> Wednesday/Thursday), we are looking at the ET having to "assess" a
> rather small pool--Eric if he stays in, the two of four CSG selects,
> Hakikur (who'd be competing for the "open" slot) and Kshatriya (who is
> alone in the unaffiliated slot).  This should be pretty easy for the ET
> to do quickly, and the house vote shouldn't be unduly complicated.
> 
> However, there's one last wrinkle, diversity:
> 
> It looks like Rgy, Rr have put forth white guys from the USA for the
> allocated slot.  If CSG does the same, we have a problem, as our rules
> say that unless the pool doesn't allow, we can't have more than two from
> the same region.  So CSG picking either Mike or Ron for the allocated
> will trigger the ET having to undertake a diversity negotiation with
> them to see if they can't perhaps put foward Olivier or Victoria
> instead.  Moreover, if CSG does not nominate Victoria either for the
> allocated slot or for one of the two for the competitive slot, (and even
> if they do and she loses in the vote), we will have no women in a
> situation where the candidate "pool did allow".  So here too, we would
> then have to go back to CSG and ask for reconsideration, which I gather
> wouldn't be easy.
> 
> The only way out on gender front that I can see would be to reverse from
> what I'd previously suggested re; Victoria.  Yes she's identifiably IPC,
> but she declared as an independent.  In order to achieve the diversity
> objective, and in order not to have a slot with just one candidate and
> no competition, I would think we could be flexible and allow her to
> compete with Kshatriya in the unaffiliated slot, and hopefully stay in
> at the the end, so we have least one woman to the five men.
> 
> In any event Wolf, CSG sort of holds the keys to unlocking the principle
> puzzles and potential problems, so I hope you can do a sit down ASAP
> with them to sort out the approach. Nominating Olivier for your
> allocated slot and either nominating Victoria for one of the two
> competitive candidacies OR agreeing (amongst us all) to release her to
> the unaffiliated pool are the big priorities now.
> 
> Best,
> 
> 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
***********************************************************