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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

>From discussions I've had here, I don't think it's accurate to suggest that 
>those candidates that SOs don't endorse would still be considered by Peter and 
>Janis. They stated in yesterday's session that they would only consider those 
>candidates that have been put forward.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 9 mars 2010 à 02:22, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> 
> 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
> ***********************************************************
> 
>