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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,

Your plan looks very good.  I would just add a couple things that
probably go without saying.  

1. Do we plan to allow for discussion of candidates?  If so, I think
those need to be off the record.

2. Should the meeting be recorded?  Should the recording be posted later
without any confidential sessions.

3. Will the meeting be transcribed?

4. We may want to start with a one page summary of the SG endorsements.

5. I think it might be a good idea for you to go over your proposed
approach in the Council meeting today and then try to get a brief
discussion going so we at least have a feel for how people feel about
the approach.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 11:00 PM
> To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: cgreer@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re:: [gnso-et] Final Candidate list & process from here
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Mar 9, 2010, at 7:28 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 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? 
> > 
> 
> 
> Attempts to start focused conversations on voting procedures 
> have not met with great success, which is a pity, especially 
> if someone asks at the open meeting how we plan to proceed.
> 
> I really think we should keep things as simple as possible.  
> There's no reason for this to be regarded as mysterious, 
> complex, or vexing.  Here's my suggestion, which I would not 
> know how to describe the status of sans feedback and 
> approval.  Anyone asks in the open meeting we'll just have to 
> say Council's still sorting the details.
> 
> There are 3 allocated candidates, hopefully 2 candidates for 
> unaffiliated, and thus 6 for the open slot.  If 1 
> unaffiliated, then 7---depends on the ET's classification, TBD.
> 
> In the latter 2 cases we vote.  All candidates are listed on 
> the ballot in their respective pools, the endorsements are 
> simply signaling devices to hopefully promote mutual adjustment.
> 
> I don't think we need an abstain option.  It's not a binary 
> between two choices, someone doesn't want x to win, they vote for y.
> 
> Staff can put on the Adobe two lists of names, one for seat 
> 5, one for 6, we go around the call, people give their first 
> preference, staff puts a mark next to the names.
> 
> Someone gets a simple majority, they win.  They don't, we run 
> a second round and see if votes shift to allow winners.  If 
> there's no winners after two rounds we stop and submit just 
> the three allocated names.  If there are winners, we are 
> bound by our rules to assess the slate by the diversity 
> criteria and try to make adjustments if necessary.  That 
> would be a difficult process, one I very much hope we can avoid.
> 
> The various scenarios are very much dependent on how the ET 
> distributes the candidates to categories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>