RE: [council] AoC RT Endorsement Process, Motion, and Amendments

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

I hope I'm responding to the most recent message. If not, would someone
please forward it?  (All of my email rules have disappeared and I now
have thousands of messages in my in box.)
 
The concern driving the proposed amendment is that the Council's role
has been greatly restricted in the restructuring and the initially
proposed mechanism goes beyond that role.  The greater specificity in
the process, the greater the certainty.  There was concern that the
Council would move directly to the broader applicant pool without
considering the SG additional candidates. 
 
To avoid any confusion about my proposed amendments (and it appears
there may be some), here's the step-by-step for the two scenarios
 
Scenario 1 (diversity goals met with SG nominees):  Council receives 4
nominated (or whatever we're calling them) candidates (1 from each SG),
diversity goals are satisfied, so Council endorses all four candidates.

 
Scenario 2 (diversity goals not met):
 
Step1:  Council receives 4 nominated SG candidates (1 from each SG), but
diversity goals are not met.
Step 2:  Council then considers the 6 additional candidates (2 SGs named
1, 2 SGs named 2) named by the SGs.  If consideration of these additonal
candidates results in a slate that meets diverseity goals, Council
endorses 4 candidates.  If not, see Step 3.
Step 3:  Council then considers all remaining persons in the applicant
pool (e.g., all persons who submitted applications but weren't nomiated
by SGs or identified as "additional candidates).  The last sentence in
my number 4 was directed to this step.
 
If my proposed amendments did not make that clear, please let me at what
step they weren't clear enough. 


________________________________

        From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 11:30 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: GNSO Council List; Rosette, Kristina; Knobenw
        Subject: Re: [council] AoC RT Endorsement Process, Motion, and
Amendments
        
        
        Hi Chuck 

        On Jun 13, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

                
                
                I personally support the motion as proposed because I
think the required threshold of 60% of each house for any additional
candidates provides more than enough protection to ensure SG support.
That would require 5 affirmative votes for the CPH and 8 affirmative
votes of the NCPH, so no SG could control the vote, not even with the
NCA vote.  With that protection, it seems problematic to add more
complexity to the process.
                
                At the same time, if there are those who cannot support
the original motion as is, I think I could support a modification that
would do the following:
                1.       If the Council decides to try to improve the
diversity of the pool of GNSO endorsed candidates, they would first
consider those alternate candidates proposed by the SGs, if any.  


        Wouldn't we do this anyone as a matter of courtesy and common
sense without codifying it?  If there's a pool of 8 candidates and SGs
have come to internal agreement that they could support persons x y and
z, presumably their reps would indicate that when the conversation
begins and we'd commence talking about x y and z before moving on to the
five nobody had yet preferred.  Would anyone really say well, your SG
may like Ms. x but I refuse to talk about her and insist we start with
someone nobody's said they favor?


                
                (One flaw with this as Bill noted in our meeting last
week is that an SG could submit all remaining candidates as alternates.)


        After I said that, somewhat in jest, Kristina specified in the
amendment, "notify Council of one or two additional candidates whom it
could support, if available." 


                
                
                2.       If the Council is unable to approve any
additional candidates to improve diversity of the pool using only  SG
proposed alternates, then they could consider the entire set of
candidates requesting GNSO endorsement.
                3.       I would add one new wrinkle to this: SG's
should only propose alternates that are of a different geographical
location or gender than their primary candidate.  In fact this would
probably be a useful amendment to the original motion.


        I'd favor that, but not if it's tied to prohibiting the Council
from even considering people who were not so designated.


                
                
                What the IPC is proposing is that only applicants that
SGs have previously designated as acceptable back-ups could even be
considered by the Council for this purpose.


                
                [Gomes, Chuck]  I didn't understand it as this
restrictive.  I thought Kristina said that the SG alternatives would be
considered first; then if that didn't result in a successful resolution,
other candidates could be considered. 


        That's what you suggested as an alternative.  Kristina's text
says

                3.  Change third bullet of #2 to read:  Each stakeholder
group is encouraged to (a) identify in its internal deliberations and
(b) notify Council of one or two additional candidates whom it could
support, if available, in the event that the diversity procedure
outlined in item 4 below is utilized.  

                4.  Change the now-third sentence of point 4 to read:
If, however, the list does not meet the above mentioned diversity
objectives, the Council as a whole may choose to endorse up to two
additional candidates, from among those identified by the stakeholder
groups under item 2, who would help to give the list of GNSO nominees
the desired balance.  If consideration of these additional stakeholder
group-identified candidates does not meet the diversity objectives, the
Council may refer to the GNSO applicant pool to identify these
additional candidates.

        So anyone in the applicant pool who has not been specifically
endorsed for possible consideration could not be considered.  

        Best,

        Bill