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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From a purely practical point of view, it is probably impossible to
change the rules of the game now.  For the RySG and I suspect for other
SGs as well, we are going to try to make our decisions tomorrow.  The
Council approved the plan we are using now and there is not time for the
Council to approve changes to it before tomorrow.  In fact it is already
tomorrow for some of you!

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 4:18 PM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: GNSO Council 
> Subject: Re: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> 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
> ***********************************************************
> 
> 
>