Re: [council] AoC RT Endorsement Process, Motion, and Amendments

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chuck

On Jun 13, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>  
> I personally support the motion as proposed because I think the required 
> threshold of 60% of each house for any additional candidates provides more 
> than enough protection to ensure SG support.  That would require 5 
> affirmative votes for the CPH and 8 affirmative votes of the NCPH, so no SG 
> could control the vote, not even with the NCA vote.  With that protection, it 
> seems problematic to add more complexity to the process.
>  
> At the same time, if there are those who cannot support the original motion 
> as is, I think I could support a modification that would do the following:
> 1.       If the Council decides to try to improve the diversity of the pool 
> of GNSO endorsed candidates, they would first consider those alternate 
> candidates proposed by the SGs, if any. 

Wouldn't we do this anyone as a matter of courtesy and common sense without 
codifying it?  If there's a pool of 8 candidates and SGs have come to internal 
agreement that they could support persons x y and z, presumably their reps 
would indicate that when the conversation begins and we'd commence talking 
about x y and z before moving on to the five nobody had yet preferred.  Would 
anyone really say well, your SG may like Ms. x but I refuse to talk about her 
and insist we start with someone nobody's said they favor?

> (One flaw with this as Bill noted in our meeting last week is that an SG 
> could submit all remaining candidates as alternates.)

After I said that, somewhat in jest, Kristina specified in the amendment, 
"notify Council of one or two additional candidates whom it could support, if 
available." 

> 2.       If the Council is unable to approve any additional candidates to 
> improve diversity of the pool using only  SG proposed alternates, then they 
> could consider the entire set of candidates requesting GNSO endorsement.
> 3.       I would add one new wrinkle to this: SG’s should only propose 
> alternates that are of a different geographical location or gender than their 
> primary candidate.  In fact this would probably be a useful amendment to the 
> original motion.

I'd favor that, but not if it's tied to prohibiting the Council from even 
considering people who were not so designated.

>  
> What the IPC is proposing is that only applicants that SGs have previously 
> designated as acceptable back-ups could even be considered by the Council for 
> this purpose.

> [Gomes, Chuck]  I didn’t understand it as this restrictive.  I thought 
> Kristina said that the SG alternatives would be considered first; then if 
> that didn’t result in a successful resolution, other candidates could be 
> considered. 

That's what you suggested as an alternative.  Kristina's text says
> 3.  Change third bullet of #2 to read:  Each stakeholder group is encouraged 
> to (a) identify in its internal deliberations and (b) notify Council of one 
> or two additional candidates whom it could support, if available, in the 
> event that the diversity procedure outlined in item 4 below is utilized.  
> 

> 4.  Change the now-third sentence of point 4 to read: If, however, the list 
> does not meet the above mentioned diversity objectives, the Council as a 
> whole may choose to endorse up to two additional candidates, from among those 
> identified by the stakeholder groups under item 2, who would help to give the 
> list of GNSO nominees the desired balance.  If consideration of these 
> additional stakeholder group-identified candidates does not meet the 
> diversity objectives, the Council may refer to the GNSO applicant pool to 
> identify these additional candidates.
> 

So anyone in the applicant pool who has not been specifically endorsed for 
possible consideration could not be considered.  

Best,

Bill