[council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...

[Gomes, Chuck]

The proposed AoC plan uses the word 'endorsement'.  If a candidate is not endorsed, I guess you can consider that 'blocking'. Regardless, it has been my understanding all along that Peter and Janis will only consider the candidates we endorse.  If they do not support any of them, they could then come back to us.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 3:10 AM
> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
> Cc: William Drake; GNSO Council 
> Subject: RE: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
> 
> 
> That's the problem Stephane. This should be an endorsement 
> exercise, not a blocking exercise. Endorsement should not be 
> a requirement, only a factor for Peter and Janis to consider. 
> All applicants should be considered by Peter and Janis.
> 
> Tim
> 
> ------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
> Date: Tue, March 09, 2010 1:41 am
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com>
> Cc: "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>, 
> "GNSO Council " <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> Tim,
> 
> From discussions I've had here, I don't think it's accurate 
> to suggest that those candidates that SOs don't endorse would 
> still be considered by Peter and Janis. They stated in 
> yesterday's session that they would only consider those 
> candidates that have been put forward.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 9 mars 2010 à 02:22, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
> 
> > 
> > This is what I was concerned about and voiced more than once when 
> > coming up with this process. That endorsement or lack 
> thereof didn't 
> > keep the other applicants from still being considered by 
> Peter and Janis.
> > However, that is now exactly what is going to happen. That 
> may be what 
> > some of you had assumed, but it was not my understanding.
> > 
> > We and other SO/ACs have applicants that some of us don't 
> know. So in 
> > most cases we're just going to toss them out because we don't have 
> > time to look into them further, actually talk to the 
> applicants, etc. 
> > What we should be doing is pushing back hard on this to allow 
> > sufficient time for us to do this. It is too important to rush 
> > through, but that's exactly what we're doing.
> > 
> > In addition, some SGs cannot even follow their normal processes to 
> > make selections. That isn't fair to the SG at large, or to 
> the candidates.
> > 
> > At the very least, we should be looking at how we can endorse the 
> > largest number of candidates, not some arbitrary number. I 
> also don't 
> > agree that we will be limited to 2 GNSO candidates on the RT. If we 
> > assume that, it certainly will be that. But I think there is a 
> > realistic opportunity it could be 3 or even 4. We should 
> continue to 
> > push back on that as well, and having a larger field of GNSO 
> > candidates for Peter and Janis to select from would make 
> that easier.
> > 
> > In any event, the RrSG has so far been able to narrow down the 
> > candidates we would endorse to 4. But that was done 
> arbitrarily due to 
> > lack of time. Since there is no time to fully engage our SG 
> at large 
> > we very well may be submitting all 4 names with the 
> expectation that 
> > all would be considered by Peter and Janis for selection. IMO, 
> > anything else would be unfair to both the applicants and the SG.
> > 
> > We throw process out the window all the time - every time 
> we do a PDP 
> > for example. So to refuse to at least make some exceptions 
> now for SGs 
> > that request it would seem disingenuous to me.
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
> > From: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> > Date: Mon, March 08, 2010 3:18 pm
> > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com
> > Cc: "GNSO Council " <council at gnso.icann.org>
> > 
> > Hi Tim,
> > 
> > On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:36 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> Given what Janis and Peter said during the AoC Q&A this morning 
> >> including the fact that the review team will be larger than first 
> >> proposed, we should re-think our endorsement process and only be 
> >> considering who if any of the twelve we do not endorse and 
> submit the 
> >> rest.
> > 
> > That is the process we have now. We nominate up to four for the 
> > allocated slots. We have two competitive slots, and we 
> endorse the two 
> > people who get majorities of both houses in a vote. Those who are 
> > thereby endorsed we submit, those who are not thereby endorsed we 
> > don't submit.
> > 
> > Which is precisely what was agreed in the room. GNSO, ALAC, 
> and ccNSO 
> > all expressed surprise and dismay when Peter sort of 
> loosely suggested 
> > at the outset that all candidates be sent to them, as we'd all 
> > constructed processes for community endorsement based on our 
> > understandings of prior communications and our expectations of the 
> > function the selectors would be expecting us to serve, vetting and 
> > reducing the load on them. When pressed, he reversed 
> course. CLO and I 
> > both asked point blank if we shouldn't send along just 
> those names our 
> > communities agreed to endorse, not the ones our communities had 
> > decided not to endorse, and he said yes. Twice.
> > 
> > We have a process that's been agreed by us and by the 
> Selectors, one 
> > which endorses representatives rather than passing along anyone off 
> > the street, and it parallels what other SO/ACs are doing. 
> As such, I 
> > don't understand what rethinking could be needed.
> > 
> >> 
> >> I think this should be kept simple. If any of the candidates have 
> >> endorsement of at least one SG they are included.
> > 
> > So each SG would endorse as many as they want and these 
> would all be 
> > passed along? So one SG could nominate six (or sixty) while 
> another SG 
> > nominated one, because it (correctly) understood we'd 
> agreed to parity 
> > for the allocated slots and had to choose one? This would 
> be extremely 
> > unfair and is the opposite of what we we negotiated.
> > 
> >> The names would be
> >> submitted showing the SG(s) endorsement. This only 
> slightly changes 
> >> what the SG are required to do (reverses it), and resolves 
> the gender 
> >> and geographic issues since it leaves it to Janis and 
> Peter to sort out.
> >> 
> >> This also gives the most number of candidates an opportunity to be 
> >> considered and give the GNSO the best shot at being fully 
> represented 
> >> on the RT.
> > 
> > I don't understand this. If they decide GNSO gets two, 
> which I believe 
> > they will, how would it increase our chances of having the 
> two if we 
> > send more than the up to six agreed?
> > 
> > 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
> > ***********************************************************
> > 
> >
> 
> 
>