RE: [gnso-osc-ops] meaning of 'in the lead' was Re: ACTIONS/SUMMARY: ...

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Another approach might be for the RoP to require that each house send forth
one candidate each, however it is each house decides they want to do this.
But what is causing complexity is the notion that a given house may bring
forth more than one candidate, causing three or more candidates which does
not work well with the 60% threshold requirement.  I am wondering if the 60%
threshold requirement assumed one candidate from each house.  If so, we have
to require each house to put forth one candidate but where we do not dictate
how they go about it.  Instead of dealing with the complexity at the council
level, each house could vet the candidates out at their level with the
result being each house putting forth one candidate that then requires the
60% threshold which is more manageable.

 

So under 4.1, I would add a "b" such as below:

 

The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair and two Vice Chairs as follows:

 

a.                   The GNSO Chair shall be elected by a 60 percent vote of
both houses.

b.                   Each house will be allowed one candidate for GNSO
Council Chair.

 

Thoughts??

 

Ray

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:21 PM
To: Ray Fassett; Avri Doria; gnso-osc-ops
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] meaning of 'in the lead' was Re:
ACTIONS/SUMMARY: ...

 

Dear Work Team members,

Here is a revised version of the operating procedures including my attempt
to put into process form the proposal that Avri has made for discussion by
this team.  I am not a mathematician so I cannot be certain that my math is
correct.  There also may be a simpler way to describe this.

Thanks!

Julie  


On 9/3/09 2:17 PM, "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have no objection to incorporating Avri's suggestion into the document to
facilitate work team discussion, please do so.thanks.
 
Ray
 

  _____  

From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:54 PM
To: Ray Fassett; Avri Doria; gnso-osc-ops
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] meaning of 'in the lead' was Re:
ACTIONS/SUMMARY: ...

Ray,

I think Avri's suggestion is extremely helpful.  I would suggest, if you
wish, that I take Avri's proposal and write it up as a procedure for the
Work Team to consider and discuss

Thanks,

Julie 


On 9/3/09 10:45 AM, "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Well said, Avri, and I do not disagree.  As a WT I think we have worked
pretty had on this so I just want to caution that it would be a very unfair
characterization that our approach has been for Policy Staff to figure it
out for us.  I am not saying that this is what you mean but instead, as the
Chair of this WT, taking your advice appropriately and correctly to not go
in such a direction.

At the same time, Policy Staff has played an important support role for us,
primarily administrative but sometimes substantive as well.  At the end of
the day, if Rob would have been on the call yesterday, I would not have
suggested for Julie to seek his opinion, as I would have done so right there
on the call because he has shown me that his skill set has been helpful in
exactly these type of questions to the benefit of our work.  We're under
some time constraints and I made the judgment call to give Julie permission
to seek his input to this specific question for what I consider, in balance,
the right reasons.

But this is a good discussion and I want to stress is helpful to me.

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 2:20 AM
To: gnso-osc-ops
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] meaning of 'in the lead' was Re:
ACTIONS/SUMMARY: ...


Hi Ray,

Yes, I know it was your suggestion.  And I was not being in any way 
critical of Julie.  I think we should welcome her suggestions and the 
suggestions of other individual members of the Policy Staff.

I just think that discussion about what the GNSO puts in its Operating 
Procedures should be discussed on an open list by the interested 
parties and that we should not make requests that Policy Staff go 
figure it out for us.   Too much is being decided in the back room by 
Policy Staff without any consultation with GNSO participants, and i 
was indicating my discomfort with us asking them to do so.  For me it 
is part of a larger transparency issue.  I believe that anytime the 
Policy Staff goes off and makes its 'recommendations' it becomes 
harder for the participants to make their own decisions.  We tend to 
take what gets handed to us on a silver platter and just accept it 
without thinking it through as carefully as we might if we watch the 
sausage being made.

That is why I voiced my opinion on it.  If people in this WT would 
prefer that Policy Staff go off and figure it out for us, then I guess 
that is what this group should do.  I was just advising against it.

thanks
a.


On 3 Sep 2009, at 01:50, Ray Fassett wrote:

> For the record, it was my thinking for Julie to go to internal staff
> resources for dialogue/advice on the language of what "leading" 
> could mean.
> I am not seeing the transparency issue but your point is taken.
>
> Hope this helps to explain - different than offering an opinion on 
> your
> solution which I will look at carefully and respond - thanks for 
> doing that.
>
> Ray
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-
> ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 5:12 PM
> To: gnso-osc-ops
> Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] meaning of 'in the lead' was Re: ACTIONS/
> SUMMARY:
> ...
>
>
>
> On 2 Sep 2009, at 22:33, Julie Hedlund wrote:
>
>> 1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure: Review Sections beginning with
>> 5.2 to the end of the document. See attachment.  Julie will get
>> clarification on suggested language to define the term "leading" in
>> the context of Section 4.1 Selection of the Council Chair.
>
>
> On this one, I know, I would be much more comfortable with a dialogue
> on the list as to what 'in the lead' means then a dialogue among the
> staff that we are not party to.  I totally accept Julie coming up with
> a suggestion as was asked in the meeting, but would prefer that any
> dialog, including the participation of other Policy Staff, be
> transparent if at all possible.  Obviously people, including Julie,
> will talk to whomever they wish, but formalizing a request for staff
> consultation is what strikes me as non-transparent.
>
> One thing I did fully understand during the meeting was why 'in the
> lead'  had to mean in both houses.  i guess i do not see the danger of
> one house having a clear advantage for the following reasons:
>
> - by dealing with percentages in the houses, we effectively equalize
> the influence of the house's votes.  using percentages is a
> normalization.
> - by requiring a positive outcome of 60% in each house for election of
> the chair, having an advantage in just one house in the previous
> ballot does not translate into an automatic victory in the runoff
> - as long as the 'non of the above' option remains active in all
> ballots, it becomes impossible for one house to force its will on
> another.  just because there is only one candidate left, it does not
> mean that candidate will take the election.  people have to actually
> vote for her.
>
> Assuming this reasoning is acceptable to others and we do move to a
> notion of 'is in the lead' meaning an overall percentage lead, i think
> the simplest result would be to do it mathematically.  The set of
> possible results is not very large and i  guess that either a formula
> or a table could be generated that clearly shows the leads.
>
> since i tend to think in terms of formulae and models one that i think
> works for me takes its basis from the notion of proof in whiskey (i
> like whiskey and hence use it as opposed to some other alcohol)
>
> 200 proof = 100% alcohol
>
> if we take 100% of both houses, we get to 200 proof
>
> assuming that using percentage equalizes the influence of the houses
> then
> assume house A and B with two candidates x and y
>
>  A                    B
> x    y             x   y
>
> 73 30          30 70   = 100/100 hence a tie and we go into election
> timeout
> 60 40          40 40   = 100/80   x is in the lead - x versus 'non of
> the above'
> 50 50          40 60   =  90/110  y is in the lead - y versus 'none of
> the above'
>
> etc...
>
> (the same formula works for candidates > 2 )
>
>
> i.e. whoever has the highest Proof is in the lead.
> does not _ win_ unless both houses meet the threshold, but the lead is
> clear.
>
> thanks for reading
>
> a.
>
>
>
>