GNSO Special Council Teleconference Agenda 15 March 2010

Last Updated: 17 March 2010
Date: 
15 March 2010

Meeting Time 11:00 UTC

See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com for other times:
04:00 PST; 05:00 MDT; 06:00 CDT; 07:00 EST; 08:00 Buenos Aires; 08:00 /Sao Paulo; 12:00 CET; 14:00 Moscow; 16:00 Pakistan; 19:00 Hong Kong/Singapore; 20:00 Tokyo; 22:00 Melbourne.

Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.

Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room
http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/
Please enter as a 'guest'.

Background

On 15 February 2010, the GNSO Council approved the resolutions copied below in Attachment A and in the Council minutes at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-18feb10-en.htm.

The Endorsement Process referenced in the first resolution of the motion is copied below in Attachment B.
The purpose of this meeting is to decide whether the GNSO will endorse a candidate for the open slot and a candidate for the unaffiliated slot as describe in the Endorsement Process and, if so, to identify which candidates to endorse.

References:
• Candidate Application Documents: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/
• Chair recommended procedures for meeting: See Attachment C below
• ET Report: See Attachment D below.

Agenda

Note: Portions of this meeting will not be recorded

Item 1: Administrative matters

1.1 Start recording

1.1 Roll call of Council members

1.2 Update any statements of interest

1.4 Discuss Chair Recommended Procedures (see Attachment C below)

1.5 Review/amend agenda

Item 2: Report from the GNSO Evaluation Team (Caroline Greer)

2.1 Members of the Evaluation Team (ET)
2.2 Report
2.3 Discussion
2.4 Thanks to Caroline and the ET team

Item 3: Confirmation of SG Slate of Nominees

Brian Cute, US - RySG

Warren Adelman, US - RrSG

Olivier Muron, FR - CSG

Willie Currie, SA - NCSG

Item 4: Unaffiliated Slot

4.1 ET recommended candidates:

Elaine Pruis, US

S. S. Kshatriya, India

4.2 Discussion

4.3 Poll Councilors regarding the two candidates

o If one of the candidates receives simple majority support from each house, that candidate is endorsed.
o If neither candidate receives simple majority support from each house, a second round of discussion is held and the Council is polled again.

 If one of the candidates receives simple majority support from each house, that candidate is endorsed.
 If neither candidate receives simple majority support from each house, then no candidate is endorsed for the unaffiliated slot.

Item 5: Open Slot

5.1 Hakikur Rahman, Bangladesh

5.1.1 Discussion

5.1.2 Poll

• If he receives simple majority support from each house, he is endorsed.
• If he does not receive simple majority support from each house, a second round of discussion is held and the Council is polled again.
• If he does not receive simple majority support from each house, then he is not endorsed.
5.2 If Hakikur is not endorsed, the Council needs to decide if we want to consider one more candidate from North America and thereby make an exception to the geographical diversity requirement:
• If not, then no one would be endorsed for the open seat.
• If so, we would consider the remaining candidates as follows:

o Discuss each of the candidates and poll the Council regarding each of them:

 If only one candidate receives simple majority support from each house, that candidate is endorsed.
 If more than one receives simple majority support from each house:

• The candidate with the most support is endorsed.
• If they both received the same amount of support, discuss and poll one more time.
• If there is still a tie, no candidate will be endorsed for the open slot.

o If no candidate receives a simple majority of support from both houses, no candidate will be endorsed for the open slot.

Item 6: Action Items

5.1 If the slate is complete, Chuck will send the approved slate to Peter Dengate Thrush and Janis Karklins.

5.2 If not, another meeting will be scheduled for Tuesday. Best times appear to be 11:00 UTC, 13:00 UTC and 18:00 UTC.

 

Attachment A

On 15 February 2010, the GNSO Council approved the following Resolution:

• RESOLVED, that the Endorsement Process described in the attached document
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-endorsement-nominees-process-proposal-10feb10-en.pdf
is hereby approved;

• RESOLVED FURTHER, that each Stakeholder Group and the GNSO Council Nominating Committee appointees should immediately commence their selection processes in accordance with the Endorsement Process;
• RESOLVED FURTHER, ICANN Staff is directed to post and distribute the Endorsement Process as widely as possible to all GNSO related groups in an effort to inform qualified applicants of the important work of the Accountability and Transparency review team;
• RESOLVED FURTHER, the Council shall form an Evaluation Team made up of one Councilor from each SG plus one Nominating Committee Appointee in its meeting on 18 February to assess the responses and report to the Council list not later than 10 March or 14 March;
• RESOLVED FURTHER, ICANN Staff is directed to schedule a Special Council Teleconference call on 15, 16 or 17 March at a time that maximizes Councilor participation for the purpose of finalizing GNSO endorsements;
• RESOLVED FURTHER, the Affirmation of Commitments Review Drafting Team is requested to continue its work to develop a longer-term process for Council consideration in April.

Attachment B

Process for GNSO Endorsement of Nominees to the Affirmation of Commitments Accountability and Transparency Review Team

Based on the qualifications listed below, the GNSO Council will endorse up to six volunteers for the 2010 Affirmation of Commitments Accountability and Transparency Review Team as follows:
1.
Each stakeholder group will select one nominee.

2.
Up to two additional nominees will be selected by a simple majority vote of each house. One slot will be open to applicants of any kind. The other slot will be reserved for candidates who do not self-identify with any particular stakeholder group, including NomCom appointees [more on self-identification below]. Prior to the vote, an Evaluation Team comprising one Councilor from each stakeholder group plus one NomCom appointee will assess the applications for these two slots and report to the Council.

3.
Unless the applicant pool does not allow, no more than two nominees should come from the same geographical region.

4.
Unless the applicant pool does not allow, nominees must not all be of the same gender, and the distribution between genders should be no greater than two-thirds to one-third.

5.
If the diversity goals in points 3 and 4 above are not achieved in the initial round of selections, the Evaluation Team will consult with the stakeholder groups and NomCom appointees to review the candidate pool, and then present to the Council an alternative mix that would meet the goals. The Council would vote on the new list, with a simple majority of both houses required for acceptance. If the vote fails, the cycle will repeat until there is a successful outcome.

6.
With regard to the two slots that are not allocated to the stakeholder groups, in the event that more than two candidates receive at least a simple majority from each house, ties will be broken as follows, in the order presented: 1) geographical and/or gender diversity; and 2) the total votes received.

Applicant Qualifications

ICANN’s Requirements:

a. Sound knowledge of ICANN and its working practices and culture;

b. Good knowledge of the subject area of the review;

c. Team spirit, adaptability;

d. Willingness to learn;

e. Capacity to put aside personal opinions or preconceptions;

f. Analytical skills;

g. Ability to interpret quantitative and qualitative evidence;

h. Capacity to draw conclusions purely based on evidence;

i. Commitment to devote his/her time to the review process

Additional GNSO Requirements:

Applicants interested in being considered for endorsement by the GNSO must also include in their submission to ICANN the following information:

• The full name and contact information of the applicant (including the name of her/his employer and title);

• The ICANN Geographic Region(s) in which the applicant is a citizen and a resident;

• An attestation that the applicant is able and willing to commit at least ten hours per week during the review period, in addition to participating in the planned face to face and/or teleconference review team meetings;

• Identification of any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest of the applicant in registries, registrars or other entities that are stakeholders or interested parties in ICANN or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement;

• Indication of whether the applicant would be representing any other party or person through her/his review team participation and, if so, identification of that party or person;

• A two to three paragraph statement about the applicant’s knowledge of the GNSO community and its structure and operations, and any details of his/her participation therein; or

• In the event that an applicant has not been involved in the GNSO community, a two to three paragraph description of his/her qualifications that would be of relevance to the accountability and transparency review team.

In addition to the above required information, volunteers are encouraged to self-identify with any GSNO SG / Constituency with which they feel most closely affiliated. If a volunteer is unclear about or chooses not to identify his/her affiliation, the GNSO Council will follow an internal procedure to allocate the volunteer to the most appropriate slot based on available information or further consultation with the volunteer.

All information must be submitted as directed by ICANN at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-03feb10-en.htm along with the CV and motivation letter requested in the ICANN call for volunteers..

Attachment C

Chair Opinion regarding GNSO Council Endorsement Procedure for 2010 AoC A&T RT - Prepared by Chuck Gomes, 14 March 2010

On 18 February 2010, the GNSO Council approved a process for endorsement of candidates for the 2010 AoC A&T RT. That process therefore needs to be the basis for the procedures used in the GNSO Council Special Meeting on 15 March 2010 to approve the full endorsement slate to be submitted to the Selectors for that RT.

Excerpts from the six key elements of that process are listed below with my assessment of their status in italic font in parentheses:

1. “Each stakeholder group will select one nominee.” (This has been completed and needs no further action.)

2. “Up to two additional nominees will be selected by a simple majority vote of each house. One slot will be open to applicants of any kind. The other slot will be reserved for candidates who do not self-identify with any particular stakeholder group, including NomCom appointees . . .” (Candidates have been identified for these two slots by the ET. The purpose of the Special Council meeting is to determine who, if any, candidates will be endorsed by the Council for these two slots.)

3. “Unless the applicant pool does not allow, no more than two nominees should come from the same geographical region.” (This requirement has been met for the four SG nominees but will not be met if another candidate from North America is endorsed.)

4. “Unless the applicant pool does not allow, nominees must not all be of the same gender, and the distribution between genders should be no greater than two-thirds to one-third.” (Because of the decision to eliminate one of the female applicants based on assessment of the required qualifications, it is not possible to fully meet this requirement. In addition, based on the requirement in 3.a above and recognizing that two of the four SG nominees are from North America and that the remaining female candidate is also from North America, the Council has to either make an exception to the requirement in 3.a above or have no gender diversity. It is my recommendation as chair that we make an exception to the geographic diversity requirement and therefore include the remaining female candidate in the unaffiliated category for consideration by the Council.)

5. “If the diversity goals in points 3 and 4 above are not achieved in the initial round of selections, the Evaluation Team will consult with the stakeholder groups and NomCom appointees to review the candidate pool, and then present to the Council an alternative mix that would meet the goals. The Council would vote on the new list, with a simple majority of both houses required for acceptance.”

6. “With regard to the two slots that are not allocated to the stakeholder groups, in the event that more than two candidates receive at least a simple majority from each house, ties will be broken as follows, in the order presented: 1) geographical and/or gender diversity; and 2) the total votes received.” (Note that simple majority support is required for endorsement of any candidate for the unaffiliated and open slots.)

Based on the above, recommend as chair that:

• The SG slate of nominees be accepted as is.

• The Council be polled regarding the two candidates identified by the ET for the unaffiliated slot:

o If one of the candidates receives simple majority support from each house, that candidate is endorsed.
o If neither candidate receives simple majority support from each house, a second round of discussion is held and the Council is polled again.

 If one of the candidates receives simple majority support from each house, that candidate is endorsed.
 If neither candidate receives simple majority support from each house, then no candidate is endorsed for the unaffiliated slot.

• The Council be polled regarding the candidates identified by the ET for the open slot as follows:

o To comply with the geographic diversity requirement (item 3 above), the Council should first discuss Hakikur’s candidacy and then be polled regarding support for him:

 If he receives simple majority support from each house, he is endorsed.
 If he does not receive simple majority support from each house, a second round of discussion is held and the Council is polled again.
 If he does not receive simple majority support from each house, then he is not endorsed.

o If Hakikur is not endorsed, the Council needs to decide if we want to consider one more candidate from North America and thereby make an exception to the geographical diversity requirement:

 If not, then no one would be endorsed for the open seat.
 If so, we would consider the remaining candidates as follows:

• Discuss each of the candidates and poll the Council regarding each of them:

o If only one candidate receives simple majority support from each house, that candidate is endorsed.
o If more than one receives simple majority support from each house:

 The candidate with the most support is endorsed.
 If they both received the same amount of support, discuss and poll one more time.
 If there is still a tie, no candidate will be endorsed for the open slot.

• If no candidate receives a simple majority of support from both houses, no candidate will be endorsed for the open slot.

Attachment D

Note to GNSO Council in preparation for Special Council Meeting to be held 15 March, 2010 Evaluation Team Recommendations - AoC Review Team [Accountability & Transparency]

Background Note

The Evaluation Team(ET)members are as follows: Caroline Greer (RySG), Adrian Kinderis / Tim Ruiz (RrSG) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (CSG), Bill Drake (NCSG) and Olga Cavalli (NCAs).

The ET met on 11th March to a) try to identify which applicants the Stakeholder Groups (SG) were selecting for their “allocated slots,” absent any official notification of same; b) identify which applicants would be standing for election to the ‘Unaffiliated’ and ‘Open’ slots; c) allocate these applicants between the two slots, based on the process agreed in the GNSO-approved Action Plan of 18 February; and d) determine whether the ET could reach consensus to recommend top candidates to the Council for each of these slots.

The purpose of the Special Council meeting of 15 March is to determine who, if any, candidates will be endorsed by the Council for the two open slots

Per the approved process, up to 6 candidates will be forwarded by the GNSO Council to the Selectors. However, it should also be noted that it was decided at the ICANN Board meeting of 12th March that GNSO allocations would be been increased from 1 to 4.

Given the low number of candidates overall (12), the ET noted that it could be challenging to apply the diversity rules to which the Council had agreed. Nevertheless, Council members should consider diversity when endorsing / voting, particularly if a first round of voting does not result in a simple majority endorsement / vote.

Allocation of Candidates

Deferred Candidate
Eric Brunner-Williams, US (NB: The Stability and Security RT was Eric’s first choice).

Allocated Candidates – one per SG

Brian Cute, US – RySG

Warren Adelman, US – RrSG

Olivier Muron, FR - CSG

Willie Currie, SA – NCSG

(NB: This provides 2 US, 1 European and 1 African candidate, giving rise to representation of 3 geographic regions but no gender diversity).

Unaffiliated Slot – for Council vote

Elaine Pruis, US

S. S. Kshatriya, India

Open Slot – for Council vote

Ron Andruff, US
Mike O’Connor, US
Mark Bohannon, US
Victoria McEvedy, UK
Hakikur Rahman, Bangladesh

ET Recommendations for the Unaffiliated and Open Slots / Council Action

For the Unaffiliated Slot:

  • RySG would support Elaine
  • NCSG would support Elaine
  • RrSG and CSG have reservations on both candidates
  • NCAs may support Elaine (NB no final confirmation received)

Council Action: ET members are divided on whether to recommend that the Council vote for Elaine. Councilors must now vote on their preferred candidate. A simple majority vote of both Houses will secure victory for a candidate. Alternatively, the Council could vote in such a manner that neither candidate gets a majority. If the first round of voting fails to produce a positive result, a second round will be conducted. The outcome of the second round would be definitive.

Considerations / Recommendations: Elaine is knowledgeable and would bring to the RT a view from outside the existing SG alignments. It is also worth recalling that the Council adopted rules requiring gender and geographic diversity ‘if the candidate pool allows’ along with procedures to redress inadequate diversity.

For the Open Slot:

RySG supports Ron but could support some of the other candidates as well

RrSG supports Ron and Mark

CSG supports Ron and Mark

NCSG supports Hakikur

Council Action: ET members gave the broadest support to Ron and Mark, although Hakikur also received some support. Councilors must now vote on their preferred candidate. A simple majority vote of both Houses will secure victory for a candidate. Alternatively, the Council could vote in such a manner that neither candidate gets a majority. If the first round of voting fails to produce a positive result, a second round will be conducted. The outcome of the second round would be definitive.

Considerations / Recommendations: Both Mark and Ron are US males. The addition of a third US male (alongside Brian and Warren, who are nominated in the allocated slots) would likely raise significant questions in relation to the diversity requirements and the various considerations made by the Council. Hakikur would strengthen the geographic diversity of the group but garnered less support in the ET overall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 11:00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 04:00
Cedar Rapids, USA (CST) UTC-6+1DST 06:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 07:00
Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 08:00
Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 08:00
Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+0DST 11:00
Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00
Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00
Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+0DST 14:00
Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 16:00
Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 19:00
Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 20:00
Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 22:00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com