<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" 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-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</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=WordSection1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Bill,<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>. I thought we were elected to represent our
respective slices of the community and after consulting with them could act in
their names, and if they don't like what we've done we get unelected in the
next cycle.<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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Is this not the same debate as “participatory vs representative”?<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'>For what it is worth, I share the same quandary.<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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-AU style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Adrian Kinderis</span></b><span
lang=EN-AU style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><br>
<br>
</span><span lang=EN-AU style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-AU style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<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"'>
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <b>On Behalf
Of </b>William Drake<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 14, 2010 6:17 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Rosette, Kristina; 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>Hello,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>It seems there are two levels to this discussion. The
broader one concerns the nature and role of the Council. Kristina argues
that the Council " has been greatly restricted in the restructuring
and the initially proposed mechanism goes beyond that role," and that
"having a slightly more complicated process at the SG level is far
preferable to having the Council take on an SG role and make nominations
independent of the community." I wasn't around when the veterans
among us were having the constitutional discussions leading to Council reform,
so I guess I'm not sufficiently clueful on how everyone sees this. While
I understand that Council is now supposed to be more a coordinator/facilitator
of community processes than the doer of all things, I did not take this to mean
that it cannot legitimately make decisions via votes on matters like adding a
person or two to enhance the diversity of the GNSO's RT nominations because
that would be acting independently of the community. I thought we were
elected to represent our respective slices of the community and after
consulting with them could act in their names, and if they don't like what
we've done we get unelected in the next cycle. So then what decisions can
we take that do not constitute acting independently of the community,
where's the boundary line? If I'm the only one who is perplexed I hope
someone will straighten me out in Brussels...<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Anyway, on the issue at hand, Chuck your understanding of
the drafting team's proposal is not different from everyone else's. The
text clearly says "The Council will consider the resulting list of up
to four nominees at its next teleconference. If the list
does not meet the above mentioned diversity objectives, the Council as a
whole may choose to endorse <b>up to two additional candidates</b>..."
Two additional is additive, not substitutive. To my knowledge, the
notion that after considering diversity options the Council would endorse only
four (Kristina's Step 2, below) is new, it wasn't included in the amendment
language she sent to the list (quoted at the bottom) and I don't recall anyone
suggesting it on the call. From my standpoint, this is even more
problematic than what we were talking about previously. It would either
a) astronomically politicize the process by raising the prospect that Council
could overturn SG's one-per endorsements, leading to inter-SG squabbling over
whose gets dumped and associated bad feelings...and talk about undercutting SG
sovereignty!; or b) create really strong disincentives to do anything to
enhance diversity in order to avoid that scenario. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>The whole point of the drafting team proposal was to make
the process simple and apolitical, driven in large part by the fact that the
ATRT model with the two competitive seats appeared to generate a lot of
confusion and agitation within one SG in Nairobi. This proposal would
plunge us far in the opposite direction.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Circling back to what we were talking about yesterday, the
text below that Kristina sent Thursday during the call says, "the Council
as a whole may choose to endorse up to two <b>additional</b> candidates, <b>from
among those identified by the stakeholder groups</b> under item 2."
That plainly means only those identified by the stakeholder
groups under item 2, there's no misunderstanding here. In
yesterday's message she instead proposes what Chuck suggested on the call, that
the rest of the pool could in fact be considered, but only after Council has
discussed SGs' back-up endorsements. This is better from the standpoint
of those of us who think Council should be able to consider the whole pool, but
as I said yesterday it's not obvious why we would need to legislate what we
would undoubtedly do anyway based on common sense and courtesy. But if it
makes folks happier....While we're at it, maybe we should also codify the
precise sequence of the discussion, i.e. the order in which SG back-ups get
considered and the time allotted to each? <o:p></o:p></p>
</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>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Jun 14, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Chuck</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
border-width:initial;border-color:initial;z-index:auto'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;
border-width:initial;border-color:initial'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> </span></span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>Rosette, Kristina
[mailto:krosette@cov.com]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Sunday, June 13,
2010 10:17 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>William Drake; Gomes,
Chuck<br>
<b>Cc:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>GNSO Council List;
Knobenw<br>
<b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>RE: [council] AoC
RT Endorsement Process, Motion, and Amendments</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<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>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<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>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<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>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<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>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<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>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<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>
</div>
<div>
<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>
</div>
<div>
<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>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<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>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<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
class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> </span></span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>William Drake
[mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Sunday, June 13,
2010 11:30 AM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Cc:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>GNSO Council List;
Rosette, Kristina; Knobenw<br>
<b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [council] AoC
RT Endorsement Process, Motion, and Amendments</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Hi Chuck<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Jun 13, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<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>
<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>
<div style='margin-left:.5in'>
<div>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style='margin-left:.5in'>
<div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style='margin-left:.5in'>
<div>
<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>
<div style='margin-left:.5in'>
<div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
border-width:initial;border-color:initial'>
<div>
<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>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
border-width:initial;border-color:initial'>
<div>
<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>
</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>
<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<span
class=apple-converted-space><b> </b></span><b>one or two additional
candidates</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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,<span
class=apple-converted-space> </span></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>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Bill<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>***********************************************************<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>
<a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a><br>
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><a
href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake">www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake</a><br>
***********************************************************<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>