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

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have not heard anything from Tim / the RgrSG yet but I am now drafting
a note to Council based on our discussions on Thursday morning and
making some assumptions, since we cannot wait any longer. I will send
this draft to ET members shortly.
 
Thanks,
 
Caroline.
 
From: owner-gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 14 March 2010 12:26
To: William Drake
Cc: Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-et] Proposed Agenda for Council Special Meeting on 15
March
 
Thanks for the response Bill.  Please see my comments and questions
below.
 
I assume that we have not yet heard from the RrSG?  Knowing there
selection will greatly help us in simplifying our procedures and also
help the ET in finishing its report and recommendations.  Should
Caroline contact Tim?
 
Chuck
         
        
________________________________

        From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 6:14 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-et] Proposed Agenda for Council Special
Meeting on 15 March
        Importance: High
        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.  
        [Gomes, Chuck] This I believe is what you described in the
Wrap-Up meeting on Thursday.  I may have asked this on Thursday so sorry
if I am repeating myself: In this approach, am I correct that all
candidates for a slot would be considered in one poll and each Councilor
would express support for only one candidate?  I am okay with this as
long as the Council supports it and there was no opposition to it on
Thursday so I think that is likely.
         
        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. [Gomes, Chuck]  Correct.  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.[Gomes, Chuck]   Correct. In the
approach I described, I was trying to avoid this from happening because
I thought it might be desirable to give the Selectors some choice by
giving them more than four candidates.  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.[Gomes, Chuck]   Excellent point.
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
outcome.[Gomes, Chuck]  Agree again.  The only issue from a diversity
point of view is that we would not meet our gender goal but, like
Caroline said, a good case could be made that the pool was too limited. 
         
        Cheers,
         
        Bill
         
         
        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
        william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
        ***********************************************************