ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>, <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: AW: AW: [gnso-et] Final Candidate list & process from here
  • From: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:46:20 -0000

That's the idea, yes. The Registries will discuss it tomorrow. 


Caroline Greer
Director of Policy 

----- Original Message -----
From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Caroline Greer; william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Cc: Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon Mar 08 14:39:51 2010
Subject: AW: AW: [gnso-et] Final Candidate list & process from here

Question to all: can you ensure that you'll definitely come up with nominations 
and guidance from your SG at the ET call on Thursday? According to the GNSO 
session last Saturday council is expecting SG input by March 14 the latest. 
This time may be needed by the SGs in order to coordinate.

Kind regards

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Montag, 8. März 2010 11:10
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: AW: [gnso-et] Final Candidate list & process from here

Lets be careful also not to get too caught up in diversity to the exclusion of 
everything else - quality of candidates matters too: experience and 
qualifications etc.

FYI I will be offline most of today travelling to Reston but I will check in 



-----Original Message-----
From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 08 March 2010 09:59
To: william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Caroline Greer; Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: AW: [gnso-et] Final Candidate list & process from here


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

Kind regards

-----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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy