ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-et] Proposed Agenda for Council Special Meeting on 15 March

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-et] Proposed Agenda for Council Special Meeting on 15 March
  • From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:14:22 +0100

Hi Chuck

Thanks for this.  As Caroline has noted, there will soon be a message from the 
ET reflecting our discussion of possible recommendations.  

Personally I think the process is straightforward and there's no reason for the 
call to be particularly difficult.  We have four SG allocated slots that 
definitely go forward to J&P and two slots open to competitive votes under very 
simple procedures, e.g. each councilor votes for their preferred from the two 
lists (taking into account SG endorsements and ET assessment), if no simple 
majority we do a second round, if that fails we stop and just send the 
allocated names.  The only real wrinkle is that the diversity provisions we put 
in when we were assuming larger applicant pool that had to be sorted may or may 
not prove necessary.   Happily the language is flexible, so let's see.  Just 
one comment on your run down:

In the bits on the two voted slots you say,

"If there is not a simple majority of support in both houses for a candidate, 
then the GNSO will not endorse a candidate for this slot and will then only 
submit a slate of five candidates who are endorsed.  A second round of 
discussion and polling for each candidate will be done if needed."    

I presume you mean by this that if say slot 5 fails but slot 6 succeeds, or 
vice versa, there'd be five.  Of course, it is also possible that both slots 
fail to get simple majorities of both houses after two rounds, in which case 
we'd be submitted just the four allocated names.  From the selectors' 
standpoint that probably wouldn't be a bad outcome, one assumes they settled on 
four for GNSO thinking there should be one from each SG, so why not have each 
SG's strongest preference anyway.  And actually, since they've done it this way 
things get more complicated if anyone wins slots 5 & 6, not only because that 
could make operative the agreed diversity language, but also because there'd 
then be the possibility J&P might select someone other than a given SG's 
allocated person, in which case that SG might feel a little unhappy with the 



On Mar 12, 2010, at 11:40 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Attached is a proposed agenda for the Council Special Meeting on 15 March.  
> Please review it and provide feedback as soon as possible if anything needs 
> to be corrected.  I found it quite awkward preparing an agenda when there is 
> still critical information needed, but my hope is to at least have a template 
> that we can easily use to finalize the agenda on Sunday.  All suggestions are 
> welcome.
> Glen - Please go ahead and fill in any of the general information needed 
> including links as possible.
> Chuck
> <Agenda for GNSO Special Meeting 15 March 1010.doc>

William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy