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

[William Drake]

Hi again,

On Mar 9, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> I haven't seen anyone question whether Janis and Peter have an
> understanding of the process. Clearly, they are only going to consider
> applicants we endorse. Of course, they had also thought we would be
> inclusive and endorse all that met the criteria, but of course that
> isn't what we're doing. 

Or what the other SO/ACs are doing.  Indeed, if it were, there'd barely be any reason for the SO/ACs to be involved at all.  Anyone off the street could apply direct to ICANN and  say I want to represent the GNSO or whomever.  The whole point of the exercise was to vet a bit and try to give them a bounded, workable slate of candidates we think are qualified and that we support, as expressed in a vote by both houses.  

> What I am proposing is that each SG simply present a list of any number
> of the applicants that they endorse. Those are compiled by the Council
> and presented as candidates endorsed by this SG or that SG. The Council
> is not the GNSO, the SGs make up the GNSO and we represent them.

Ok so in this scenario, the GNSO sends the six it has selected and the SGs in parallel send lists of people they endorse. The question then is what is the status of the latter?  Would Janis and Peter be free to pick from that pool?  If no, since all the applicant names will be known to all already, presumably the purpose would be simply to let the Selectors know what each SG's first choices would have been.  If yes, this would make the Council's endorsement of the six essentially irrelevant.  Wouldn't we need to pass a motion rescinding our previous decision to choose the pool from which Janis and Peter can select GNSO representatives?   BTW, where would doing it this way leave independent, unaffiliated candidates?

We are to talk about our endorsement process and any decisions (NCSG should be able to announce its endorsements) in the open Council meeting tomorrow.  So if we are going to throw out everything we have done, we'd best decide immediately.  

Thanks,

Bill