[council] [FWD: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues]

[William Drake]

Hi again

Sorry, in the midst of constituency day discussions, let me be sure I understand...

On Mar 9, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Below is the most recent note I sent to the arr-dt list expressing my
> understanding that regardless of endorsement all applicants would still
> be considered.

[snip]

> Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues
> From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com>
> Date: Tue, March 02, 2010 11:02 am

[snip]
> 
> 3. This is about GNSO endorsement. Whether we endorse a candidate or not
> they could still be considered for selection, right?  So I think if
> someone is a member of, or represents a member of, a particular
> constituency or SG they should be sloted that way whether they request
> it or not. But whether we do it that way or not, I am not concerned
> about gaming. If one house or SG sees an applicant as attempting to game
> it is doubtful they will get the necessary majority of both Houses to
> receive GNSO endorsement.
> 

I guess the first is the sentence you're referring to?  The message was sent 13 days after the council voted approving a process under which each SG endorses candidates---one they want for their allocated slot, and up to two for the open elected slots.  In the meanwhile we were debating in the drafting group the details of how the vote would be conducted, how to deal with diversity, and how people would be allocated to slots if rejected their obvious affiliation with a SG and wanted to stand as an independent, etc.  You were responding to the third question, so I understood your point to be that the particular applicant we were discussing should be assigned to and considered for selection by the SG with which she is obviously affiliated even if she is not subsequently endorsed by that SG for the purpose of the election.  I did not understand it to mean that all candidates for the competitive slots, including those who lose the election, would be presented to the Selectors.  That doesn't really seem to follow from your statement or the discussion of which it was part, and I don't think anyone else understood it that way either, hence there were no replies contesting the point.

Sorry for the confusion,

Bill

> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues
> From: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> Date: Tue, March 02, 2010 4:40 am
> To: gnso-arr-dt at icann.org
> Cc: Adrian Kinderis <adrian at ausregistry.com.au>
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> To my regret, it occurs to me that there are some loose ends.
> 
> 1. The DT alas has another task we've not addressed, namely a proposal
> to the council on how the voting for RT slots 5 and 6 will be conducted.
> All we've said is that a majority of the two houses is needed. So ok,
> the ET allocates to 5 and 6 the candidates that have not been claimed by
> a SG for one of the four assigned slots, we have a list of let's say 6
> people for the "open" slot and two for the "unaffiliated" slot (or pick
> your numbers...but I think there'll be more of the former than the
> latter), which it has ranked somehow and maybe made a rec on, and then
> we vote. And let's say that on the first round no one person gets a
> majority of both houses for one or both of these. Then what? We're on
> the call, the clock's ticking, do we just say ok let's try that again
> and hope that on the second round people shift from any candidates that
> didn't get much support and clearly won't make it to ones that did
> reasonably well and could get to majority with a little added oomph?!
> And if that doesn't work, do a third, fourth...? I'm imagining
> councilors on the call getting a little impatient and grumpy...(If
> instead there's a tie, that's clearer, we break on diversity and total
> votes).
> 
> Before we go about inventing the wheel, can some veterans here say
> if/how the council has handled such things in the past? Is there a model
> to follow or adapt?
> 
> 2. And of course the additional wrinkle is diversity. Let's say we go
> through the exercise, nobody's been willing to change their votes much
> in a way that will produce a list of up to six in which no more than two
> nominees come from the same geographical region and the nominees are not
> all of the same gender and/or have a distribution between genders no
> greater than two-thirds to one-third. We said the ET will consult with
> the stakeholder groups and NomCom appointees to review the candidate
> pool, present to the Council an alternative mix that would meet the
> goals, and the Council would vote on the new list. This presumes a) the
> ET can work out a list quickly that councilors will feel they can vote
> on again without lengthy consults with their SGs and b) we can quickly
> schedule another call to vote before the delivery deadline of the 17th.
> Should we cross this bridge if we come to it, or think through how we'll
> deal with it? Frankly, I really hope that people will build !
> in diversity at the front end enough that we don't have to take these
> steps...with future RTs the time frame will be more conducive, but this
> time...
> 
> 3. Looking at the candidates so far an issue is raised by Victoria's
> app. I guess this is ultimately the ET's call but the DT set the
> framework and the more voices the merrier from a consensus standpoint,
> so I'll ask here and am copying Adrian as well. Victoria says,
> "Applicant was previously a member of the NCUC and is currently a member
> of the IPC. Applicant identifies with neither Constituency nor their
> respective Stakeholder Groups. Applicant wishes to be considered
> independent." The DT didn't contemplate situations in which someone
> simultaneously declares (both on her app and on her personal website)
> but sort of denounces an affiliation for the purpose of the election. I
> don't know her motives so won't address the particular case, but there's
> a general matter of principle. If an applicant is known (and even
> declared) to be in a SG, they should be considered for the "open" slot,
> not the "unaffiliated" slot, no? That's certainly how I understood the
> collective inte!
> nt when we discussed the allocation procedure, but thought maybe I
> should confirm now rather than having the ET try to figure this out
> quickly on the 11th call. Otherwise we could have people trying to game
> things, e.g. figuring well getting SG backing might be hard and there's
> less competition in the unaffiliated slot so I'd like to stand there
> regardless of my involvements. To put the point in technicolor, say
> Marilyn or Milton put their hats in the ring as unaffiliated; would we
> just say ok, if that's what you want...?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake  
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
  Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************