[council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - Self-Identification
cgreer at mtld.mobi
Tue Feb 16 23:26:01 UTC 2010
These edits look good to me, many thanks Chuck.
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: 16 February 2010 23:15
To: Caroline Greer; council at gnso.icann.org
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry
Subject: RE: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - Self-Identification
I accepted all the formatting changes in both of these documents to make them cleaner and then made some additional deletions and edits that are shown in the attached two files. Caroline, and others, please let me know if you are okay with the edits.
Note that I avoided the word "assign" because I thought that that implied something different that what I think we mean. Also, I think that the applications need to be sent to ICANN. We could also ask them to be sent to Glen directly but I am afraid that might cause some confusion. It would be bad if they were sent to the GNSO but not to ICANN and were consequently not accepted.
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:46 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry
Subject: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - Self-Identification
Revised Action Plan and Proposed Process for Endorsement now attached for your review. Edits shown in mark up.
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: 16 February 2010 18:47
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement -
My apologies to all for dragging DT arcana onto the Council list but as we have to vote on the motion in 48 hours any guidance to applicants or other externally oriented additions/clarifications we may want need to get decided. Other internal operational bits the ET can figure out once the applicant pool is clear and from that hopefully we can build toward a standing system for deal with future RT rounds.
On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
I understand your point, Bill, but I think that, with one exception, allowing each applicant to decide which SG should consider his/her application will lead to gaming.
Yes, in principle there could be several possibilities for gaming, particularly vis the two voted slots, and to the extent that we can address that ex ante it's worth doing. Otherwise we can cross bridges if we come to them as long as we don't change things in ways that may negatively impact candidates.
I think we should apply the following "rules".
1. Applicant stated in her/his application that she/he is member of an SG or constituency.
One SG/constituency membership --> assign to that SG/constituency
More than one --> applicant must designate which one.
2. Applicant did not state in his/her application that she/he is member of an SG or constituency
Councilor knowledge of membership in SG/constituency --> assign to that SG/constituency
Councilor knowledge of membership in At Large --> assign to ALAC
No membership in At Large or SG/constituency --> unaffiliated
This is pretty much how I imagined it working. Although of course a) one can have feet in both an SG and ALAC, in which case the former would be the decider if they apply via us, and b) I'd think we'd need agreement from ALAC, which has its own process, rather than unilaterally assigning people to them...
Caroline and I are batting around formulations and I imagine she'll be back to the list shortly with something for consideration, I'm signing off for the day.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council