<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>Re: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I completely agree. There have been too many moving targets as it is and time is running out. We need to keep to the plan.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----------------<BR>
Caroline Greer<BR>
Director of Policy<BR>
dotMobi<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org><BR>
To: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>; Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com><BR>
Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org><BR>
Sent: Mon Mar 08 21:39:58 2010<BR>
Subject: RE: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
From a purely practical point of view, it is probably impossible to<BR>
change the rules of the game now. For the RySG and I suspect for other<BR>
SGs as well, we are going to try to make our decisions tomorrow. The<BR>
Council approved the plan we are using now and there is not time for the<BR>
Council to approve changes to it before tomorrow. In fact it is already<BR>
tomorrow for some of you!<BR>
<BR>
Chuck<BR>
<BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<BR>
> [<A HREF="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>] On Behalf Of William Drake<BR>
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 4:18 PM<BR>
> To: Tim Ruiz<BR>
> Cc: GNSO Council<BR>
> Subject: Re: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...<BR>
> Importance: High<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Hi Tim,<BR>
><BR>
> On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:36 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
> > Given what Janis and Peter said during the AoC Q&A this morning<BR>
> > including the fact that the review team will be larger than first<BR>
> > proposed, we should re-think our endorsement process and only be<BR>
> > considering who if any of the twelve we do not endorse and<BR>
> submit the<BR>
> > rest.<BR>
><BR>
> That is the process we have now. We nominate up to four for<BR>
> the allocated slots. We have two competitive slots, and we<BR>
> endorse the two people who get majorities of both houses in a<BR>
> vote. Those who are thereby endorsed we submit, those who are<BR>
> not thereby endorsed we don't submit.<BR>
><BR>
> Which is precisely what was agreed in the room. GNSO, ALAC,<BR>
> and ccNSO all expressed surprise and dismay when Peter sort<BR>
> of loosely suggested at the outset that all candidates be<BR>
> sent to them, as we'd all constructed processes for community<BR>
> endorsement based on our understandings of prior<BR>
> communications and our expectations of the function the<BR>
> selectors would be expecting us to serve, vetting and<BR>
> reducing the load on them. When pressed, he reversed course.<BR>
> CLO and I both asked point blank if we shouldn't send along<BR>
> just those names our communities agreed to endorse, not the<BR>
> ones our communities had decided not to endorse, and he said<BR>
> yes. Twice.<BR>
><BR>
> We have a process that's been agreed by us and by the<BR>
> Selectors, one which endorses representatives rather than<BR>
> passing along anyone off the street, and it parallels what<BR>
> other SO/ACs are doing. As such, I don't understand what<BR>
> rethinking could be needed. <BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
> > I think this should be kept simple. If any of the candidates have<BR>
> > endorsement of at least one SG they are included.<BR>
><BR>
> So each SG would endorse as many as they want and these would<BR>
> all be passed along? So one SG could nominate six (or sixty)<BR>
> while another SG nominated one, because it (correctly)<BR>
> understood we'd agreed to parity for the allocated slots and<BR>
> had to choose one? This would be extremely unfair and is the<BR>
> opposite of what we we negotiated.<BR>
><BR>
> > The names would be<BR>
> > submitted showing the SG(s) endorsement. This only slightly changes<BR>
> > what the SG are required to do (reverses it), and resolves<BR>
> the gender<BR>
> > and geographic issues since it leaves it to Janis and Peter<BR>
> to sort out.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > This also gives the most number of candidates an opportunity to be<BR>
> > considered and give the GNSO the best shot at being fully<BR>
> represented<BR>
> > on the RT.<BR>
><BR>
> I don't understand this. If they decide GNSO gets two, which<BR>
> I believe they will, how would it increase our chances of<BR>
> having the two if we send more than the up to six agreed?<BR>
><BR>
> Best,<BR>
><BR>
> Bill<BR>
><BR>
> ***********************************************************<BR>
> William J. Drake<BR>
> Senior Associate<BR>
> Centre for International Governance<BR>
> Graduate Institute of International and<BR>
> Development Studies<BR>
> Geneva, Switzerland<BR>
> william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<BR>
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<BR>
> ***********************************************************<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>