Re: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tim,

On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:36 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> Given what Janis and Peter said during the AoC Q&A this morning
> including the fact that the review team will be larger than first
> proposed, we should re-think our endorsement process and only be
> considering who if any of the twelve we do not endorse and submit the
> rest.

That is the process we have now.  We nominate up to four for the allocated 
slots.  We have two competitive slots, and we endorse the two people who get 
majorities of both houses in a vote. Those who are thereby endorsed we submit, 
those who are not thereby endorsed we don't submit.

Which is precisely what was agreed in the room.  GNSO, ALAC, and ccNSO all 
expressed surprise and dismay when Peter sort of loosely suggested at the 
outset that all candidates be sent to them, as we'd all constructed processes 
for community endorsement based on our understandings of prior communications 
and our expectations of the function the selectors would be expecting us to 
serve, vetting and reducing the load on them.  When pressed, he reversed 
course.  CLO and I both asked point blank if we shouldn't send along just those 
names our communities agreed to endorse, not the ones our communities had 
decided not to endorse, and he said yes.  Twice.

We have a process that's been agreed by us and by the Selectors, one which 
endorses representatives rather than passing along anyone off the street, and 
it parallels what other SO/ACs are doing.  As such, I don't understand what 
rethinking could be needed.  

> 
> I think this should be kept simple. If any of the candidates have
> endorsement of at least one SG they are included.

So each SG would endorse as many as they want and these would all be passed 
along?  So one SG could nominate six (or sixty) while another SG nominated one, 
because it (correctly) understood we'd agreed to parity for the allocated slots 
and had to choose one?  This would be extremely unfair and is the opposite of 
what we we negotiated.

> The names would be
> submitted showing the SG(s) endorsement. This only slightly changes what
> the SG are required to do (reverses it), and resolves the gender and
> geographic issues since it leaves it to Janis and Peter to sort out.
> 
> This also gives the most number of candidates an opportunity to be
> considered and give the GNSO the best shot at being fully represented on
> the RT.

I don't understand this. If they decide GNSO gets two, which I believe they 
will, how would it increase our chances of having the two if we send more than 
the up to six agreed? 

Best,

Bill

***********************************************************
William J. Drake  
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
  Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************