<!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 6.00.6000.17023" 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=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>see my comments interspersed below. I'll be offline
(for ICANN matters) until tomorrow.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV 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> 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<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>Hello,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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...</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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
class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>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. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV>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
class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>KR: See note above. I've included below a revised
step-by-step. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif">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
class=303412413-14062010> </SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif"><SPAN
class=303412413-14062010> </SPAN></SPAN><?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O
/><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif">Scenario
2 (diversity goals not met):</SPAN><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif">Step1:
Council receives 4 nominated SG candidates (1 from each SG)<SPAN
class=303412413-14062010> and endorses all four.
However, </SPAN>diversity goals are not met.</SPAN><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif">Step
2: Council then considers the <SPAN
class=303412413-14062010> alternate candidates named by the
SGs</SPAN>. If <SPAN class=303412413-14062010> 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, </SPAN>see Step 3.</SPAN><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif">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></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></O:P></DIV></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV>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 class=303412413-14062010><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>KR: No need to worry. This was a misunderstanding.
</FONT> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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 class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>KR: see above. </FONT> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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
class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>KR: No, Bill. The language I suggested was:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff>Change the now-third sentence of point 4 to read: <STRONG>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. </STRONG> <EM>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.</EM></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><EM><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></EM></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010> </SPAN>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
class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>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. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010></SPAN><SPAN
class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010> </SPAN>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 class=303412413-14062010><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>KR: There's no need for snarkiness,
Bill. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=303412413-14062010><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV>Best,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Bill</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Jun 14, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV lang=EN-US style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" 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">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></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">Chuck<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="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="PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: rgb(181,196,223) 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, sans-serif">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, sans-serif"><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>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<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif">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></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif">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></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif">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></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif">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></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif">Scenario
2 (diversity goals not met):</SPAN><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif">Step1:
Council receives 4 nominated SG candidates (1 from each SG), but diversity
goals are not met.</SPAN><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif">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></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif">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></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif">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></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in"><DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center>
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, sans-serif">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, sans-serif"><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>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
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif">Hi
Chuck<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<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">On
Jun 13, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<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.</SPAN><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<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:</SPAN><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; 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">1.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </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><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif">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></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><BR><BR><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; 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><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif">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></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><BR><BR><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; 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">2.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </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.</SPAN><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; 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">3.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)"> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </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><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<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">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></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><BR><BR><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<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; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none">
<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.<O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><BR><BR><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<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; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none">
<DIV>
<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><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><BR>That's
what you suggested as an alternative. Kristina's text
says<O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<P
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 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><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>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: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<P
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 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
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif">So
anyone in the applicant pool who has not been specifically endorsed for
possible consideration could not be considered.
<O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<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">Best,<O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<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">Bill<O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif"><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">***********************************************************<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</DIV>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><A
href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake">www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake</A><BR>***********************************************************<BR><BR></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>