<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='WORD-WRAP: break-word;
webkit-nbsp-mode: space;webkit-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>All this makes me think that my understanding may be different
than everyone else. I understood that endorsements by the SGs would
remain regardless of what the Council might do to improve diversity. If
the Council was successful at gaining support for one or two candidates that improved
the diversity of the pool, then the pool of endorsed candidates would increase
to 5 or 6 depending on whether one or two additional candidates were
selected. The difference as I understood it between what Kristina
proposed and the original procedure, which is apparently wrong, was that the step
in the original procedures the Council would look at the full slate of
candidates seeking GNSO endorsement while what I thought Kristina suggested was
that the Council would first look at SG named alternates first and only if that
was unsuccessful would they look at the full slate of candidates seeking GNSO
endorsement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Rosette, Kristina
[mailto:krosette@cov.com] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 13, 2010 10:17 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> William Drake; Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Cc:</b> GNSO Council List; Knobenw<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [council] AoC RT Endorsement Process, Motion, and
Amendments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Scenario 2 (diversity goals not met):</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Step1: Council receives 4 nominated SG candidates (1 from
each SG), but diversity goals are not met.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>If my proposed amendments did not make that clear, please
let me at what step they weren't clear enough. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> 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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Hi Chuck <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Jun 13, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div style='margin-left:.5in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>1.</span><span
style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> <span
class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style='margin-left:.5in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>(One flaw with this as Bill
noted in our meeting last week is that an SG could submit all remaining
candidates as alternates.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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." <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style='margin-left:.5in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>2.</span><span
style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> <span
class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div style='margin-left:.5in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>3.</span><span
style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> <span
class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>I'd favor that, but not if it's tied to prohibiting the
Council from even considering people who were not so designated.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='color:#1F497D'>[Gomes, Chuck]<span
class=apple-converted-space> </span></span></i></b><span style='color:
#1F497D'> 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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
That's what you suggested as an alternative. Kristina's text says<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>So anyone in the applicant pool who has not been
specifically endorsed for possible consideration could not be considered.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Bill<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>