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

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

Bill,

Like I said in my comments a few minutes ago, I would like as much as
possible for it to be recorded, only turning off the recording if and
when we talk about the candidates.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 12:12 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; cgreer@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx; 
> Stephane Van Gelder
> Subject: Re: : [gnso-et] Final Candidate list & process from here
> 
> 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
> ***********************************************************
> 
>