<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.3790.4470" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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.)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Scenario 2 (diversity goals not met):</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Step1: Council receives 4 nominated SG candidates (1
from each SG), but diversity goals are not met.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=604424501-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>If my proposed amendments did not make that
clear, please let me at what step they weren't clear enough.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> William Drake
[mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, June 13,
2010 11:30 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Gomes, Chuck<BR><B>Cc:</B> GNSO Council List;
Rosette, Kristina; Knobenw<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [council] AoC RT Endorsement
Process, Motion, and Amendments<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Hi Chuck
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Jun 13, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: medium Arial; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV lang=EN-US
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV class=Section1 style="page: Section1">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif">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.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif">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:<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif"><SPAN>1.<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif">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.
</SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: medium Arial; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV lang=EN-US
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV class=Section1 style="page: Section1">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif">(One
flaw with this as Bill noted in our meeting last week is that an SG could
submit all remaining candidates as
alternates.)</SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>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." </DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: medium Arial; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV lang=EN-US
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV class=Section1 style="page: Section1">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif"><SPAN>2.<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif">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.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif"><SPAN>3.<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif">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.</SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I'd favor that, but not if it's tied to prohibiting the Council from even
considering people who were not so designated.</DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: medium Arial; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV lang=EN-US
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV class=Section1 style="page: Section1">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: blue 1.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; POSITION: static; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none">
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif">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.<B><I></I></B></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: medium Arial; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV lang=EN-US
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV class=Section1 style="page: Section1">
<DIV
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: blue 1.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; POSITION: static; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none">
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><B><I><SPAN
style="COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">[Gomes, Chuck]<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN></I></B><SPAN
style="COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"> 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.</SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>That's
what you suggested as an alternative. Kristina's text says</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>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<B> one or two additional
candidates</B> whom it could support, if available, in the event that the
diversity procedure outlined in item 4 below is utilized.
</FONT></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>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, f<B>rom among those identified by the stakeholder
groups under item 2, </B>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.</FONT></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>So anyone in the applicant pool who has not been specifically endorsed
for possible consideration could not be considered. </DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Best,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Bill</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>