<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.EmailStyle21
{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'>See my comments below as well. I think we now have a
common understanding, at least among Bill, Kristina and I. And I think
that brings us closer to possible agreement.<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> Monday, June 14, 2010 9:39 AM<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'>see my comments interspersed below. I'll be offline (for
ICANN matters) until tomorrow.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<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> Monday, June 14, 2010 4:17 AM<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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<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>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>[Gomes, Chuck] There may always be a challenge in drawing this
line. I think we should error on the side of making sure that we involve
our respective groups as much as possible when we represent their views but
there will be times when other factors put some limitations on that so we need
to be able to deal with those factors as well. Two that come to mind are:
1) imposed time restrictions; 2) the need to collaboratively work with other
ICANN organizations. I don’t know that I need to comment on the
first one except to say that we need to try to allow as much lead time as
possible to make decisions when it is in our control so that we can adequately
consult with our group members. Regarding the second factor, a reality
that we have to deal with is that other groups such as the ccNSO and the GAC do
not operate in the same way we do; in particular, they do not have the same
procedural requirements as we do nor do they apply the representational concept
as we do. How can we be cooperative in working with them when our
processes differ in a lot of ways. We obviously cannot impose our
processes and requirements on them and if we are rigid about how we do things,
it could come across as being unresponsive. So what am I saying? I
think there needs to be some balance and flexibility, especially on issues that
involve issues for which the Council has already established fairly clear
positions, either formally via published recommendations or informally via Council
discussions.</span></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></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. <span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'> </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'>KR: The distinction between additional and substitutive was
not clear to me and to many others. (I suspect it was the multiple uses of
the word additional.) I'm pleased to know it's truly additional; that's
helpful. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>[Gomes, Chuck] And I am pleased that I didn’t
misunderstand. Kristina, does this change your possible amendment in
anyway? Will you be able to submit your proposed amendment by Tuesday or
soon thereafter?</span></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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. <span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'> </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'>KR: See note above. I've included below a
revised step-by-step. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<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><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'> </span><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><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Step1: Council receives 4 nominated SG candidates (1 from
each SG) and endorses all four. However, 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 alternate
candidates named by the SGs. If selecting one or two of these
alternate candidates will result in a slate that overall meets
diversity goals, Council may endorse up to two of them in addition to the
candidates endorsed in Step 1. 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><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>[Gomes, Chuck] This is what I had understood in our meeting last
week. Step 2 does provide the opportunity for more direct input from SGs
and in that regard is very good. As long as that happens in advance as
proposed, it should not lengthen the time of the process and that is a positive
as well.</span></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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. <span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'> </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'>KR: No need to worry. This was a misunderstanding.
</span> <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.<span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'> </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'>KR: see above. </span> <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. <span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'> </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'>KR: No, Bill. The language I suggested was:</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'>Change the now-third sentence of point 4 to read: <strong><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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. </span></strong> <em><span style='font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"'>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></em></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'>As my language proposed, the Council would first look to the
additional (perhaps calling them alternate as I've done above would be
helpful) candidates, if any, identified by the SGs. (The bolded language
above) If considering the alternate candidates does not meet the diversity
goals (the italicized language), the Council then looks to the entire
pool. Chuck's interpretation of my proposal is correct. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> 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. <span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'> </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'>KR: See above as to what I proposed. As for common sense
and courtesy, it would be great if we could rely on that. However,
in the absence of a procedure to the contrary, there's no guarantee.
That's not something we're willing to leave to chance. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> 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? <span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'> </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'>KR: There's no need for snarkiness, Bill. </span><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'>Chuck</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<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'>
<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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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 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>
<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>
<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>
<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>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'>
<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'>
<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>Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Bill<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>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>