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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm sure there shall be a mixed discussion of procedural and personal candidate 
related items. I wonder how the switch-on and -off of the recording could be 
managed appropriately. So I'd like to suggest an off-record discussion in 
total. 


Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. März 2010 08:31
An: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; cgreer@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx; Stephane Van 
Gelder
Betreff: Re: : [gnso-et] Final Candidate list & process from here

Oh, I was assuming you'd all want it off the record.

I am totally fine with it being recorded, transcribed, whatever.  I will go 
with whatever approach makes everyone comfortable.  

On Mar 10, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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
>> ***********************************************************
>> 
>> 

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