RE: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - Self-Identification

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Agree.  Thanks, Chuck.

________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer
        Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:26 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: Glen de Saint Géry
        Subject: RE: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - 
Self-Identification
        
        
        These edits look good to me, many thanks Chuck.
         
        Caroline.
         
        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: 16 February 2010 23:15
        To: Caroline Greer; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: Glen de Saint Géry
        Subject: RE: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - 
Self-Identification
         
        I accepted all the formatting changes in both of these documents to 
make them cleaner and then made some additional deletions and edits that are 
shown in the attached two files.  Caroline, and others, please let me know if 
you are okay with the edits.
         
        Note that I avoided the word "assign" because I thought that that 
implied something different that what I think we mean.  Also, I think that the 
applications need to be sent to ICANN.  We could also ask them to be sent to 
Glen directly but I am afraid that might cause some confusion.  It would be bad 
if they were sent to the GNSO but not to ICANN and were consequently not 
accepted.
         
        Chuck
                 
                
________________________________

                From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer
                Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:46 PM
                To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                Cc: Glen de Saint Géry
                Subject: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - 
Self-Identification
                All,
                 
                Revised Action Plan and Proposed Process for Endorsement now 
attached for your review. Edits shown in mark up.
                 
                Thanks.
                 
                Kind regards,
                 
                Caroline.
                 
                From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
                Sent: 16 February 2010 18:47
                To: Rosette, Kristina
                Cc: Council GNSO
                Subject: Re: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 
Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -
                 
                Hi
                 
                My apologies to all for dragging DT arcana onto the Council 
list but as we have to vote on the motion in 48 hours any guidance to 
applicants or other externally oriented additions/clarifications we may want 
need to get decided.   Other internal operational bits the ET can figure out 
once the applicant pool is clear and from that hopefully we can build toward a 
standing system for deal with future RT rounds.
                 
                On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
                
                
                
                I understand your point, Bill, but I think that, with one 
exception, allowing each applicant to decide which SG should consider his/her 
application will lead to gaming.  
                 
                Yes, in principle there could be several possibilities for 
gaming, particularly vis the two voted slots, and to the extent that we can 
address that ex ante it's worth doing.  Otherwise we can cross bridges if we 
come to them as long as we don't change things in ways that may negatively 
impact candidates.  
                
                
                
                I think we should apply the following "rules".
                 
                1. Applicant stated in her/his application that she/he is 
member of an SG or constituency.
                 
                    One SG/constituency membership --> assign to that 
SG/constituency
                    More than one --> applicant must designate which one.
                 
                2.  Applicant did not state in his/her application that she/he 
is member of an SG or constituency
                 
                    Councilor knowledge of membership in SG/constituency --> 
assign to that SG/constituency
                            Councilor knowledge of membership in At Large --> 
assign to ALAC
                            No membership in At Large or SG/constituency --> 
unaffiliated
                 
                This is pretty much how I imagined it working.  Although of 
course a) one can have feet in both an SG and ALAC, in which case the former 
would be the decider if they apply via us, and b) I'd think we'd need agreement 
from ALAC, which has its own process, rather than unilaterally assigning people 
to them...
                 
                Caroline and I are batting around formulations and I imagine 
she'll be back to the list shortly with something for consideration, I'm 
signing off for the day.
                 
                Best,
                 
                Bill