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

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

Just one more point Bill.  If the RrSG selects Warren for their slot,
then it seems to me that the Council needs to first consider Hakikur for
the open slot because there can be no more than two from the same
region.  If he is not endorsed, then we would have to approve an
exception to the procedures to consider other candidates for the open
slot.  Does that make sense?
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 9:08 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-et] Proposed Agenda for Council Special
Meeting on 15 March
        
        

        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>