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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm okay with the edited text.
 
Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich  
 

________________________________

Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Februar 2010 00:15
An: Caroline Greer; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry
Betreff: 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