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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,

I appreciate all your effort in this respect. I am sure the CSG will carefully 
discuss the options.


Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Montag, 8. März 2010 10:52
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Cc: cgreer@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-et] Final Candidate list & process from here

Yes, but we do have a South African and Bangleshi candidate...NCSG can't be 
held singularly responsible to fulfill all diversity goals leaving other SGs 
with nothing to do ;-)


On Mar 8, 2010, at 12:49 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Bill,
> 
> I agree with respect to Eric's allocation.
> Regarding the diversity targets to be met it's a pity that the NCSG was not 
> able to motivate any female applicant. I'm looking forward to a lively 
> discussion within the CSG as well in the ET.
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von 
> William Drake
> Gesendet: Montag, 8. März 2010 09:31
> An: Caroline Greer
> Cc: Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: [gnso-et] 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
***********************************************************