RE: [council] [FWD: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues]

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

The Council approved a process and assuming there are no changes in our
timeline such as another extension, we will have to abide by that
process unless the Council decides tomorrow to change the process. But
there will be very little time on the agenda tomorrow to consider this.
Is there any other SG that wants to change the process or any NCAs who
want to comment; if so, please do so today.

If the RrSG is unable to work within the approved process, then we will
deal with that in our special meeting next week.

I should clarify that, because of the latest of timing on this, that I
made this decision on my own. I did not have time to confer with the
Vice Chairs or Staff.  If anyone believes my decision is inappropriate
in anyway, please speak up.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 3:50 AM
> To: William Drake
> Cc: GNSO Council 
> Subject: RE: [council] [FWD: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, 
> diversity, and allocation issues]
> 
> 
> Bill, it was simply the most current email expressing my 
> understanding.
> There were others during the course of the dt, and very early 
> on. I'll see what I can find since it seems to be important 
> to you, and I must evidently produce something to be taken as 
> being truthful by you. 
> 
> In any event, it doesn't change my position that it is 
> inappropriate for this to be a blocking exercise. I never saw 
> it that way and do not agree with any process that serves as such.
> 
> Tim 
> 
>  
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] [FWD: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, 
> diversity, and allocation issues]
> From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, March 09, 2010 2:22 am
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Hi again
> 
> Sorry, in the midst of constituency day discussions, let me 
> be sure I understand...
> 
> On Mar 9, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> > Below is the most recent note I sent to the arr-dt list 
> expressing my 
> > understanding that regardless of endorsement all applicants would 
> > still be considered.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues
> > From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue, March 02, 2010 11:02 am
> 
> [snip]
> > 
> > 3. This is about GNSO endorsement. Whether we endorse a 
> candidate or 
> > not they could still be considered for selection, right? So 
> I think if 
> > someone is a member of, or represents a member of, a particular 
> > constituency or SG they should be sloted that way whether 
> they request 
> > it or not. But whether we do it that way or not, I am not concerned 
> > about gaming. If one house or SG sees an applicant as attempting to 
> > game it is doubtful they will get the necessary majority of both 
> > Houses to receive GNSO endorsement.
> > 
> 
> I guess the first is the sentence you're referring to? The 
> message was sent 13 days after the council voted approving a 
> process under which each SG endorses candidates---one they 
> want for their allocated slot, and up to two for the open 
> elected slots. In the meanwhile we were debating in the 
> drafting group the details of how the vote would be 
> conducted, how to deal with diversity, and how people would 
> be allocated to slots if rejected their obvious affiliation 
> with a SG and wanted to stand as an independent, etc. You 
> were responding to the third question, so I understood your 
> point to be that the particular applicant we were discussing 
> should be assigned to and considered for selection by the SG 
> with which she is obviously affiliated even if she is not 
> subsequently endorsed by that SG for the purpose of the 
> election. I did not understand it to mean that all candidates 
> for the competitive slots, including those who lose the 
> election, would be presented to the Selectors. That doesn't 
> really seem to follow from your statement or the discussion 
> of which it was part, and I don't think anyone else 
> understood it that way either, hence there were no replies 
> contesting the point.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion,
> 
> Bill
> 
> > 
> > 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues
> > From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue, March 02, 2010 4:40 am
> > To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > To my regret, it occurs to me that there are some loose ends.
> > 
> > 1. The DT alas has another task we've not addressed, namely 
> a proposal 
> > to the council on how the voting for RT slots 5 and 6 will 
> be conducted.
> > All we've said is that a majority of the two houses is 
> needed. So ok, 
> > the ET allocates to 5 and 6 the candidates that have not 
> been claimed 
> > by a SG for one of the four assigned slots, we have a list of let's 
> > say 6 people for the "open" slot and two for the 
> "unaffiliated" slot 
> > (or pick your numbers...but I think there'll be more of the former 
> > than the latter), which it has ranked somehow and maybe 
> made a rec on, 
> > and then we vote. And let's say that on the first round no 
> one person 
> > gets a majority of both houses for one or both of these. Then what? 
> > We're on the call, the clock's ticking, do we just say ok let's try 
> > that again and hope that on the second round people shift from any 
> > candidates that didn't get much support and clearly won't 
> make it to 
> > ones that did reasonably well and could get to majority 
> with a little added oomph?!
> > And if that doesn't work, do a third, fourth...? I'm imagining 
> > councilors on the call getting a little impatient and grumpy...(If 
> > instead there's a tie, that's clearer, we break on 
> diversity and total 
> > votes).
> > 
> > Before we go about inventing the wheel, can some veterans here say 
> > if/how the council has handled such things in the past? Is there a 
> > model to follow or adapt?
> > 
> > 2. And of course the additional wrinkle is diversity. Let's 
> say we go 
> > through the exercise, nobody's been willing to change their 
> votes much 
> > in a way that will produce a list of up to six in which no 
> more than 
> > two nominees come from the same geographical region and the 
> nominees 
> > are not all of the same gender and/or have a distribution between 
> > genders no greater than two-thirds to one-third. We said 
> the ET will 
> > consult with the stakeholder groups and NomCom appointees to review 
> > the candidate pool, present to the Council an alternative mix that 
> > would meet the goals, and the Council would vote on the new 
> list. This 
> > presumes a) the ET can work out a list quickly that councilors will 
> > feel they can vote on again without lengthy consults with their SGs 
> > and b) we can quickly schedule another call to vote before 
> the delivery deadline of the 17th.
> > Should we cross this bridge if we come to it, or think through how 
> > we'll deal with it? Frankly, I really hope that people will build !
> > in diversity at the front end enough that we don't have to 
> take these 
> > steps...with future RTs the time frame will be more conducive, but 
> > this time...
> > 
> > 3. Looking at the candidates so far an issue is raised by 
> Victoria's 
> > app. I guess this is ultimately the ET's call but the DT set the 
> > framework and the more voices the merrier from a consensus 
> standpoint, 
> > so I'll ask here and am copying Adrian as well. Victoria says, 
> > "Applicant was previously a member of the NCUC and is currently a 
> > member of the IPC. Applicant identifies with neither 
> Constituency nor 
> > their respective Stakeholder Groups. Applicant wishes to be 
> considered 
> > independent." The DT didn't contemplate situations in which someone 
> > simultaneously declares (both on her app and on her 
> personal website) 
> > but sort of denounces an affiliation for the purpose of the 
> election. 
> > I don't know her motives so won't address the particular case, but 
> > there's a general matter of principle. If an applicant is 
> known (and 
> > even
> > declared) to be in a SG, they should be considered for the "open" 
> > slot, not the "unaffiliated" slot, no? That's certainly how I 
> > understood the collective inte!
> > nt when we discussed the allocation procedure, but thought maybe I 
> > should confirm now rather than having the ET try to figure this out 
> > quickly on the 11th call. Otherwise we could have people trying to 
> > game things, e.g. figuring well getting SG backing might be 
> hard and 
> > there's less competition in the unaffiliated slot so I'd 
> like to stand 
> > there regardless of my involvements. To put the point in 
> technicolor, 
> > say Marilyn or Milton put their hats in the ring as unaffiliated; 
> > would we just say ok, if that's what you want...?
> > 
> > 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
> ***********************************************************
> 
> 
>