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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is what I was concerned about and voiced more than once when coming
up with this process. That endorsement or lack thereof didn't keep the
other applicants from still being considered by Peter and Janis.
However, that is now exactly what is going to happen. That may be what
some of you had assumed, but it was not my understanding.

We and other SO/ACs have applicants that some of us don't know. So in
most cases we're just going to toss them out because we don't have time
to look into them further, actually talk to the applicants, etc. What we
should be doing is pushing back hard on this to allow sufficient time
for us to do this. It is too important to rush through, but that's
exactly what we're doing.

In addition, some SGs cannot even follow their normal processes to make
selections. That isn't fair to the SG at large, or to the candidates.

At the very least, we should be looking at how we can endorse the
largest number of candidates, not some arbitrary number. I also don't
agree that we will be limited to 2 GNSO candidates on the RT. If we
assume that, it certainly will be that. But I think there is a realistic
opportunity it could be 3 or even 4. We should continue to push back on
that as well, and having a larger field of GNSO candidates for Peter and
Janis to select from would make that easier.

In any event, the RrSG has so far been able to narrow down the
candidates we would endorse to 4. But that was done arbitrarily due to
lack of time. Since there is no time to fully engage our SG at large we
very well may be submitting all 4 names with the expectation that all
would be considered by Peter and Janis for selection. IMO, anything else
would be unfair to both the applicants and the SG.

We throw process out the window all the time - every time we do a PDP
for example. So to refuse to at least make some exceptions now for SGs
that request it would seem disingenuous to me.

Tim
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, March 08, 2010 3:18 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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
***********************************************************