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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chuck,

I don't know what's worse, that I was up at 5:30 writing that message or that 
you're still up replying to it...

As you know I'm normally a bit hardline about meetings being open and 
transparent.  However, this is an election with discussion of individuals, so 
if others propose an unrecorded, untranscribed meeting I imagine I/NCSG will go 
along.

Yes of course we should start with people talking about who they endorsed and 
why.

BD

On Mar 10, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

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