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

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

I respectfully disagree Tim.  We made a decision and it was approved by
the Council to have each SG endorse one candidate and to have the
Council approve candidates for the two open slots by a simple majority
vote of each house.  If the Council wants to change that, that could be
done, but so far I have only heard support from that from you.  I
encourage others to express support for your suggestion if they would
like to do so.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:58 AM
> To: William Drake
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
> 
> Given that they are only considering endorsed candidates:
> 
> In this exclusive context I think the AC/SOs should only be 
> vetting the applications with the goal of making sure they 
> are not just someone off the street saying I want to 
> represent the SO, but that they are/have been involved in the 
> SO and meet the requirements. If they do, they should be *endorsed.* 
> 
> I think this is what Peter and Janis thought we were going to 
> do. If not, then why not just have us make the selection? 
> 
> In my opinion, if we do anything else we are not being fair 
> to these applicants. But if the Council insists on sticking 
> with the current process, SGs should be allowed to forward 
> additional *endorsed* applicants without Council interference 
> and let Peter and Janis decide how they want to deal with it.
> 
> 
> Tim 
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
> From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, March 09, 2010 5:25 am
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Gomes,Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> On Mar 9, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> > I haven't seen anyone question whether Janis and Peter have an
> > understanding of the process. Clearly, they are only going 
> to consider
> > applicants we endorse. Of course, they had also thought we would be
> > inclusive and endorse all that met the criteria, but of course that
> > isn't what we're doing. 
> 
> Or what the other SO/ACs are doing. Indeed, if it were, there'd barely
> be any reason for the SO/ACs to be involved at all. Anyone off the
> street could apply direct to ICANN and say I want to 
> represent the GNSO
> or whomever. The whole point of the exercise was to vet a bit 
> and try to
> give them a bounded, workable slate of candidates we think 
> are qualified
> and that we support, as expressed in a vote by both houses. 
> 
> > What I am proposing is that each SG simply present a list 
> of any number
> > of the applicants that they endorse. Those are compiled by 
> the Council
> > and presented as candidates endorsed by this SG or that SG. 
> The Council
> > is not the GNSO, the SGs make up the GNSO and we represent them.
> 
> Ok so in this scenario, the GNSO sends the six it has selected and the
> SGs in parallel send lists of people they endorse. The 
> question then is
> what is the status of the latter? Would Janis and Peter be 
> free to pick
> from that pool? If no, since all the applicant names will be known to
> all already, presumably the purpose would be simply to let 
> the Selectors
> know what each SG's first choices would have been. If yes, this would
> make the Council's endorsement of the six essentially irrelevant.
> Wouldn't we need to pass a motion rescinding our previous decision to
> choose the pool from which Janis and Peter can select GNSO
> representatives? BTW, where would doing it this way leave independent,
> unaffiliated candidates?
> 
> We are to talk about our endorsement process and any decisions (NCSG
> should be able to announce its endorsements) in the open 
> Council meeting
> tomorrow. So if we are going to throw out everything we have 
> done, we'd
> best decide immediately. 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
>