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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Morning,

On Mar 9, 2010, at 4:22 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 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.

I just went through my drafting team file and looked at your messages, don't 
really see where the misunderstanding was expressed. 
> 
> 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.

There are twelve files that typically comprise a one page letter and page or 
two CV.  Deduct the four that will (presumably) be selected by the SGs for the 
allocated slots and there are eight.  So then we're talking like 16-20 pages of 
material voters can read over the next week before the call.  In addition we 
have the Evaluation Team process, which will provide the input of colleagues 
from each SG + NCA who've looked more intensively at the files.  And there is 
the fact that in reality, most of the candidates do appear to be known to most 
of us, there's only a couple that haven't really been involved much and I doubt 
that certain voters would be inclined toward them in any event.  So personally 
I don't see how a process in which people stand for office, submit candidatures 
conveying whatever info they wish, and are considered by their peers is unfair 
to those who alas fail to make the cut.  It's standard democratic practice, 
followed all the time.  

> 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.

We all hated the timeline and they did ultimately change it several times due 
to complaints.  Now there are ten days between the submission deadline and the 
Council's notification deadline.  Ten days to look at eight short files and 
vote for the two best doesn't seem unduly frenzied to me.
> 
> 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.

Here we agree, I wish there was a bigger window so for example NCSG could have 
done a formal online election, but given the constraints ICANN imposed we 
re-calibrated and opted to select one person we could all agree on for the 
allocated slot and have just one member standing for one of the competitive 
slots.  Which is not unusual, as there are only two registry candidates and one 
registrar candidate. I'm hard pressed to see how a SG that has only one or two 
to choose from is being procedurally subverted.  The only real complications 
are for CSG, which has five, one of which wishes to stand as an independent 
rather than CSG.  Given that there's only one other independent for the 
unaffiliated slot, I'm inclined to make an exception to our agreed allocation 
practice and let her do that, am waiting to hear from other ET colleagues on 
the point.  In which case CSG would need to nominate one for the guaranteed 
allocated slot and select two out of three for the competitive slot.
> 
> 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.

I'd be surprised if they decide to give us three instead of two, but if they 
do, great, if the election is cooperative we'll have six names from which they 
can choose.
> 
> In any event, the RrSG has so far been able to narrow down the
> candidates we would endorse to 4.

There's one candidate who's declared an identification with the RrSG, Warren 
Adelman.  You can "endorse" him for the slot allocated to the RrSG.  With 
regard to others, do you  mean "vote for" in the election to the open slot?  If 
you split your votes across three people you reduce the chance of any of them 
getting the majority of both houses that's required to win....? 

> 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.

Not sure I understand.  The DT you were on agreed a method, the Council you are 
on voted to follow it.  So the Council votes, we submit our list to Peter and 
Janis, and you'll separately write to them and disavow the process you agreed 
to and submit for their consideration names of people the Council opted not to 
elect?
> 
> 
> 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.

Colleagues spent a lot of time working out a process that's fair to all SGs 
(giving each a guaranteed slot in pool and a shot at having one other of their 
choice elected) and providing an option for unaffiliated people to get a 
hearing as well.  Now at the 12th hour the process you voted for twice is no 
good and we should chuck it.  I guess we have different conceptions of what 
qualifies as disingenuous.

Best,

Bill
> 
> -------- 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
> ***********************************************************
> 

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