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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 14, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.
Two polls.  It's like this:


1 Deferred

Eric Brunner-Williams


4 Allocated (would be nice if SG would announce, today's the deadline; anyway, 
these are not voted and don't really need to be discussed unless folks want to)

Brian Cute, US, Afilias

Willie Currie, APC, SA

Olivier Muron, France, CSG

Warren Adelman (President CEO of Go Daddy) USA 

 

2 Unaffiliated  [so this is a vote among two candidates, neither of whom seem 
likely to get a majority of both houses]

Elaine Pruis, US, M&M 

S. S. Kshatriya, India


5 Open  [a vote among 5; indicators on the ET call were that the three business 
SGs support Bohannon and perhaps to a lesser exten Andruff.  NCSG will vote for 
Rahman.   It will be close.  Again, if one of the leading CSG candidates wins, 
there's is some question as to whether we are not then obligated to fire up the 
diversity mechanism and try to negotiate a more balanced outcome.  If Rahman 
won I suppose we could say ok no women but at least the five submitted would be 
two US one France on South Africa one Bangladesh.   If nobody wins the 
diversity point becomes moot since the language we adopted doesn't apply, then 
we just submit the four allocated names.]

Mark Bohannon, Software & Info Industry Association, USA

Ron Andruff, TRAVEL, US

Mike O’Connor, BC, US, retired

Victoria McEvedy

Hakikur Rahman, Bangladesh, NCUC


>  
> 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. 

Understand your point in principle, but see above concern in practice.  If the 
5th is a white guy from the US, on top of Brian Warren, can we pretend that the 
diversity mechanism can be avoided?
>  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>