<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
AW: AW: AW: [gnso-et] Final Candidate list & process from here
- To: <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: AW: AW: AW: [gnso-et] Final Candidate list & process from here
- From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:28:37 +0100
Does anybody know how the council voting procedure shall be next week? Are they
going to vote on each single applicant or just on the bunch?
Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Montag, 8. März 2010 22:21
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Cc: cgreer@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [gnso-et] Final Candidate list & process from here
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
***********************************************************
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|