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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

For NCSG, yes.  Probably we can do this by the 10th.

Best,

Bill

On Mar 8, 2010, at 5:39 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
> Wolf-Ulrich 
> 
> 
> 
> -----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 
> tonight.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Caroline.
> 
> -----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
> 
> 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
> ***********************************************************
> 

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