March 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: URGENT: Absentee Ballot on Board Seat #13 Election Resolution
by Rosemary Sinclair March 10, 2010

March 10, 2010

Dear Glen Pls advise if formalities met.. my vote below - YES Cheers Rosemary -----Original Message----- From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Thu 3/11/2010 8:46 AM To: Rosemary Sinclair Subject: URGENT: Absentee Ballot on Board Seat #13 Election Resolution Dear Rosemary, In keeping with the proxy vote procedures, all councilors who were absent from the Council meeting today, Wednesday 10 March 2010 are allowed an absentee ballot. Councilors noted as absent: Adrian Kinderis, Terry Davis, Rosemary Sinclair. Below, please find a ballot with an option to vote, YES, NO or ABSTAIN. The current bylaws require a reason for abstaining on a policy recommendation, so please indicate your reason for abstaining. PLEASE NOTE: There is one motion. Please return the ballot, that is, indicate your preference with an X and send the lines preceded with *asterisks directly to the GNSO Council mailing list <council(a)gnso.icann.org> * On the Board Seat #13 Election Resolution I vote: * [ x] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: white-0 This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at 12:30 Nairobi time, 09:30 UTC, Wednesday, 10 March, 2010. Completed ballots are due NLT 09:30 UTC Saturday, 13 March 2010. (01:30 PDT, 20:30 Melbourne/Sydney Board Seat #13 Election Resolution Motion made by Chuck Gomes and seconded by Stephane van Gelder Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws specify that the GNSO has the right to select two individuals to serve on the ICANN Board, commonly referred to as Board Seats 13 and 14; Whereas, under the Bylaws, the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO Council selects the individual to fill Board Seat 13, and the Non-Contracted Parties House selects the individual to fill Board Seat 14; Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved the process proposed by the Contracted Party House to select a representative to fill Board Seat 13 for the 2010 election, and amended its Operating Procedures to include that process (see - http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-28jan10-en.htm) Whereas the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO Council has utilized that process to select Bruce Tonkin to serve as the Board member for Seat 13; RESOLVED, The GNSO Council acknowledges the selection of Bruce Tonkin by the Contracted Parties House to fill ICANN Board Seat 13 and directs the GNSO Secretariat to make the necessary notifications to the Board and the community. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: URGENT: Absentee Ballot on Board Seat #13 Election Resolution
by Terry L Davis, P.E. March 10, 2010

March 10, 2010

Glen * On the Board Seat #13 Election Resolution I vote: * [X] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: white-0 Take care Terry -----Original Message----- From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:11 AM To: Terry L Davis, P.E. Cc: GNSO SECRETARIAT Subject: URGENT: Absentee Ballot on Board Seat #13 Election Resolution Dear Terry, In keeping with the proxy vote procedures, all councilors who were absent from the Council meeting today, Wednesday 10 March 2010 are allowed an absentee ballot. Councilors noted as absent: Adrian Kinderis, Terry Davis, Rosemary Sinclair. Below, please find a ballot with an option to vote, YES, NO or ABSTAIN. The current bylaws require a reason for abstaining on a policy recommendation, so please indicate your reason for abstaining. PLEASE NOTE: There is one motion. Please return the ballot, that is, indicate your preference with an X and send the lines preceded with *asterisks directly to the GNSO Council mailing list <council(a)gnso.icann.org> * On the Board Seat #13 Election Resolution I vote: * [ ] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: white-0 This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at 12:30 Nairobi time, 09:30 UTC, Wednesday, 10 March, 2010. Completed ballots are due NLT 09:30 UTC Saturday, 13 March 2010. (01:30 PDT, 20:30 Melbourne/Sydney Board Seat #13 Election Resolution Motion made by Chuck Gomes and seconded by Stephane van Gelder Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws specify that the GNSO has the right to select two individuals to serve on the ICANN Board, commonly referred to as Board Seats 13 and 14; Whereas, under the Bylaws, the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO Council selects the individual to fill Board Seat 13, and the Non-Contracted Parties House selects the individual to fill Board Seat 14; Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved the process proposed by the Contracted Party House to select a representative to fill Board Seat 13 for the 2010 election, and amended its Operating Procedures to include that process (see - http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-28jan10-en.htm) Whereas the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO Council has utilized that process to select Bruce Tonkin to serve as the Board member for Seat 13; RESOLVED, The GNSO Council acknowledges the selection of Bruce Tonkin by the Contracted Parties House to fill ICANN Board Seat 13 and directs the GNSO Secretariat to make the necessary notifications to the Board and the community. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Friendly Amendments to VI Charter and Motion
by Tim Ruiz March 10, 2010

March 10, 2010

Two friendly amendments that I believe most agree resolves the remaining issues: Friendly amendment to the charter: Strike the definition for "Relationship between VI and CO." Friendly amendment to the motion to add the following resolve: Resolved further, that the WG is directed to develop a version of objective 5 and to recommend it to the Council within three weeks for either (a) Council approval of the WG-recommended Objective 5 or (b) Council vote on which version of Objective 5 (as reflected in the draft Charter of March 10, 2010) should apply. Tim

5 4

RE: [council] Friendly Amendments to VI Charter and Motion
by Tim Ruiz March 10, 2010

March 10, 2010

The Reston team - Chuck Gomes, Kristina Rosette, Jeff Neuman, Caroline Greer, and myself. Otherwise known as the Fab Five ;) Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Friendly Amendments to VI Charter and Motion From: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu> Date: Wed, March 10, 2010 3:13 am To: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> My thanks to Tim and everyone who worked on this motion - I'm glad we got to a final resolution! Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong(a)piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>To:"GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org>Date: 3/10/2010 3:29 AMSubject: [council] Friendly Amendments to VI Charter and Motion Two friendly amendments that I believe most agree resolves the remaining issues: Friendly amendment to the charter: Strike the definition for "Relationship between VI and CO." Friendly amendment to the motion to add the following resolve: Resolved further, that the WG is directed to develop a version of objective 5 and to recommend it to the Council within three weeks for either (a) Council approval of the WG-recommended Objective 5 or (b) Council vote on which version of Objective 5 (as reflected in the draft Charter of March 10, 2010) should apply. Tim

4 3

URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications
by William Drake March 10, 2010

March 10, 2010

Hello, I'm afraid there are two outstanding issues about the election process, sigh... I. Pool Subject to Voting Since a) the council will be having an open meeting tomorrow in which we may need to explain details of the process, b) I am told that some members of other SGs gathered here in Nairobi have concerns about possible RT election scenarios, and c) Tim has raised concerns about the process winnowing the pool, I want to make sure everyone is on the same page on a key point regarding the house election for the 5th and 6th RT pool slots. Wolf raised this with me the other day as well. Based on discussions in the drafting team, some weeks ago Chuck notified SG chairs that they could endorse up to two candidates for the "open" (not the "unaffiliated") slot that is subject to election by the House (actually I think the initial bracketed language he used was two "alternates"). Nobody ever objected so we let that stand as a limitation. Alas, during the frenzied Council call when we adopted the motion minutes after finding out the revised dates for the process, we were focused on other issues and didn't manage to discuss and draw it into the process document that was the subject of the motion. One could argue then that since the Council didn't formally specify and approve this element, we can interpret it however we want without doing any violence to the agreed process. I can see two ways to interpret what we agreed: 1. SG endorsements of up to two candidate for the open elected slot simply signals SG support for two out of the list of competitors. So, for example (the precise number is pending agreement within the ET) it appears that there may be five candidates that are affiliated with the CSG. The CSG endorses (i.e. says "we favor") two, which the houses may wish to take into account in voting, but the other three remain in the pool that will be voted on. 2. Instead, SG endorsements of up to two candidate for the open elected slot means that they select only those two to stand for election, and the others fall out and are not on the ballot. By my personal not-ratified-by-the-ET count, the twelve candidates should be classified as follows: 1 person who will be held out of the pool as his first choice is to be considered for the Security and Stability RT 1 RgySG person 1 RgrSG person 5 CSG persons 2 NCSG persons 2 independent/unaffiliated persons Without prejudging the decisions they will make, I would guess that the RgySG and RgrSG would choose the people affiliated with them for the allocated slots, which are not subject to the election. NCSG has selected a person for its allocated slot. This would mean then that the potential competition for the open elected slot is between 4 of the 5 CSG people (assuming they choose one for the allocated slot) and one NCSG person. (Of course the RgySG and RgrSG could opt not to put the two into the allocated slots, in which case you'd have to add one or two to the pool being voted on). So: for that election, would the Council like to 1. Have all five people competing, with CSG's endorsement of up to two meaning only that they prefer them, or 2. Interpret the endorsement as meaning that only those two can stand for election, in which case the pool for the vote would be 2 CSG + 1 NCSG? My preference would be that it be open, option 1. Per Tim, this also gives everyone a chance at being elected. Moreover, I would add that if we don't view SG endorsements of x as taking y out of the pool, there's another option, namely that CSG could choose not to endorse any of them, so that it doesn't have to make uncomfortable choices among colleagues and all get to stand. II. Voting Process I raised this before with the DT and ET, didn't get a clear answer, and there was no further pre-travel discussion. If on the voting call no candidates get majorities of both houses, we can either a) stop there and say nobody wins that slot; b) do a second vote, in which hopefully enough people would shift their positions to put someone over the top, and if the 2nd doesn't work either, just agree nobody wins; or c) keep doing voting rounds until someone wins. Obviously, a) is the easiest, but b) or c) would be fairer to the candidates. I'd personally prefer b). The same would presumably apply to the vote for the unaffiliated slot. It would be really great to clarify these two items before the open meeting. Can we do this by consensus or do we need to have a quick motion? Responses would be very much appreciated. Sorry...i can assure you nobody is more tired of this than I. Bill

6 5

AW: VI motion; friendly amendment
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 10, 2010

March 10, 2010

Dear all: Following the ISPCP comment on vertical integration I'd like to submit a friendly amendment to the motion for your consideration and approval as attached. <<VI_friendly_amendment.doc>> Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich > _____________________________________________ > Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. März 2010 16:56 > An: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Cc: ispcp(a)icann.org > Betreff: VI motion > > Dear All: > > please find attached a comment from the ISPCP constituency regarding the motion on vertical integration. > < Datei: ISPCP-VI-comment.doc >> > > Kind regards > Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

IMPORTANT:GNSO Open Council Meeting Agenda - Nairobi 10 March 2010 remote participation
by Glen de Saint Géry March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Dear All, Please find the Remote participation details and detailed agenda for the GNSO Open Council meeting on Wednesday, 10 March in Nairobi. PLEASE NOTE: The Adobe Connect room is not the same one that we use for our usual Council meetings. This is the link for the Adobe Connect Room: Virtual Meeting Room: http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/tsavo/ Please call in with the dial-in details that will be sent in a separate email. http://nbo.icann.org/node/8887 Date: Wednesday, 10 March 2010 - 08:00 - 12:30 Room: Tsavo A Remote Participation - Low Bandwidth Audiocast: English 16kbps Chat Room: http://nbo.icann.org/chat/tsavoa Remote Participation - High Bandwidth Audiocast: English 64kbps Virtual Meeting Room: http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/tsavo/ Two-Way Audio (Remote Dial-In / Teleconference): http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-10mar10-en.htm Proposed GNSO Public Council Meeting Agenda - Nairobi - Wednesday 10 March 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-10mar10-en.htm https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_10_march_2010 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 28 October 2009 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/operating-procedures-revised-draft-clean-09o… For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 08:00 Local time in Nairobi- 05:00 UTC. See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 21:00 PST (Tuesday 9 March); 23:00 CST (Tuesday 9 March); 00:00 EST; 02:00 Buenos Aires; 02:00 Brazil; 06:00 CET; 08:00 Moscow; 10:00 Pakistan; 13:00 Hong Kong; 14:00 Tokyo; 16:00 Melbourne. Note: The opportunity for community comments will be provided at selected points throughout the meeting. Note: A 30 minute break is planned. It will be inserted at a convenient point in the agenda. Efforts will be made to have the break at a time that will correspond as closely as possible to the scheduled meeting break. Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the following Council meetings per the new Council Operating Procedures: * 18 February meeting - Approved on 1 March 2010. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08410.html Item 2: Vertical Integration PDP (20 minutes) 2.1 Refer to proposed charter for Vertical Integration Policy Development Policy (PDP) Working Group (WG): http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective… 2.2 Brief overview of the proposed charter (Margie Milam) 2.3 Motion: See: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_march_2010_motions 2.4 Council Discussion 2.5 Community Comments 2.6 Vote 2.7 Next Steps 2.7.1 Formation of Working Group 2.7.2 Selection of Council Liaison 2.7.3 Other? Item 3: GNSO Improvements (30 minutes) 3.1 Progress Reports http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/notes-council-10mar10-en.htm 3.1.1 Policy Process Steering Committee Estimated Completion Dates for Policy Development Process (PDP) work team (WT) and Working Group Model (WT) (Marika Konings) 3.1.2 Operations Steering Committee Estimated Completion Dates for GNSO Council Operations WT, Constituency/Stakeholder Group WT and Communications & Coordination WT (Julie Hedlund) 3.2 Renewal of Steering Committee Charters 3.2.1 Motion: See: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_march_2010_motions 3.2.2 Council Discussion 3.2.3 Vote 3.3 Review of GNSO Working Group Guidelines 3.3.1 Refer to GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f… Version 5 February 2010 at: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05feb10-en.htm 3.3.2 Brief overview of GNSO Working Group Guidelines (Marika Konings) http://nbo.icann.org/meetings/nairobi2010/presentation-rap-wg-10mar10-en.pdf 3.4 Council Discussion & Community Comments Item 4: Board Seat 13 Election Confirmation (15 minutes) 4.1 Summary of the Contracted Party House Election Process & Outcome CPH Councilor - Stephane van Gelder 4.2 Motion: See: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_march_2010_motions 4.3 Council Discussion 4.4 Community Comments 4.5. Vote Note: Absentee voting will be allowed Item 5: New gTLD Implementation Issues (30 minutes) 5.1 Expressions of Interest 5.1.1 Refer to http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/related-en.htm Latest Draft Model: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/eoi-model-18dec09-en.pdf Public Comment: http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/ Summary of Comments/Analysis http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-eoi-15feb10-en.pdf 5.1.2 Council Discussion 5.1.3 Community Comments 5.2 Other New gTLD Implementation Issues? BREAK Item 6: GNSO endorsements of Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Review Team volunteers (20 minutes) 6.1 Refer to the Draft Proposal for Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Review Teams http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/affirmation-reviews-draft-propo… 6.2 Refer to motion approved on 18 February 2010, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201002 The action plan The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) drafting team (DT) Action Plan for Development of GNSO Endorsement of Review Team (RT) Volunteers http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-endorsement-volunteers-action-plan-10feb1… and process for GNSO endorsements of AoC Review Team volunteers at: The Proposed Process for GNSO Endorsement of Nominees to the Affirmation of Commitments Accountability and Transparency(A&T RT) Review Team http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-endorsement-nominees-process-proposal-10f… 6.2.1 List of AoC A&T RT volunteers seeking GNSO endorsement: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/ Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 6.2.2 Update from Evaluation Team - Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 6.2.3 GNSO Council and Community Comments Item 7: Registration Abuse Policy (RAP) WG Draft Report (30 Minutes) 7.1 Refer to: Registration Abuse Policies Public Comment Period at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201003-en.htm#rap-ini… Registration Abuse Policies Initial Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap-wg-initial-report-12feb10-en.pdf 7.2 Overview of WG recommendations (Greg Aaron) http://nbo.icann.org/meetings/nairobi2010/presentation-rap-wg-10mar10-en.pdf 7.3 Council & Community Discussion Item 8: Whois Studies (30 minutes) 8.1 Whois Studies Update (Liz Gasster) http://nbo.icann.org/meetings/nairobi2010/presentation-update-gnso-requeste… 8.2 Council Discussion 8.3 Community Discussion Item 9: Prioritization of GNSO work (20 minutes) 9.1 Status Report (Jaime Wagner) http://nbo.icann.org/meetings/nairobi2010/presentation-wpm-team-update-10ma… 9.2 Next steps? 9.3 Council Discussion 9.4 Community Discussion Item 10: Open Microphone (30 minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Supermajority"); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 05:00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 21:00 Tuesday 9 March Cedar Rapids, USA (CST) UTC-6+0DST 23:00 Tuesday 9 March New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 00:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 02:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-2+1DST 02:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+0DST 05:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 06:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 06:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+0DST 08:00 Nairobi, Kenya UTC+3+0DST 08:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 10:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 13:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 14:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 16:00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/ Thank you. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Whatever happens, under this process, we still have until the 14 March, correct? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Tue, March 09, 2010 6:45 am To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hello, I'm afraid there are two outstanding issues about the election process, sigh... I. Pool Subject to Voting Since a) the council will be having an open meeting tomorrow in which we may need to explain details of the process, b) I am told that some members of other SGs gathered here in Nairobi have concerns about possible RT election scenarios, and c) Tim has raised concerns about the process winnowing the pool, I want to make sure everyone is on the same page on a key point regarding the house election for the 5th and 6th RT pool slots. Wolf raised this with me the other day as well. Based on discussions in the drafting team, some weeks ago Chuck notified SG chairs that they could endorse up to two candidates for the "open" (not the "unaffiliated") slot that is subject to election by the House (actually I think the initial bracketed language he used was two "alternates"). Nobody ever objected so we let that stand as a limitation. Alas, during the frenzied Council call when we adopted the motion minutes after finding out the revised dates for the process, we were focused on other issues and didn't manage to discuss and draw it into the process document that was the subject of the motion. One could argue then that since the Council didn't formally specify and approve this element, we can interpret it however we want without doing any violence to the agreed process. I can see two ways to interpret what we agreed: 1. SG endorsements of up to two candidate for the open elected slot simply signals SG support for two out of the list of competitors. So, for example (the precise number is pending agreement within the ET) it appears that there may be five candidates that are affiliated with the CSG. The CSG endorses (i.e. says "we favor") two, which the houses may wish to take into account in voting, but the other three remain in the pool that will be voted on. 2. Instead, SG endorsements of up to two candidate for the open elected slot means that they select only those two to stand for election, and the others fall out and are not on the ballot. By my personal not-ratified-by-the-ET count, the twelve candidates should be classified as follows: 1 person who will be held out of the pool as his first choice is to be considered for the Security and Stability RT 1 RgySG person 1 RgrSG person 5 CSG persons 2 NCSG persons 2 independent/unaffiliated persons Without prejudging the decisions they will make, I would guess that the RgySG and RgrSG would choose the people affiliated with them for the allocated slots, which are not subject to the election. NCSG has selected a person for its allocated slot. This would mean then that the potential competition for the open elected slot is between 4 of the 5 CSG people (assuming they choose one for the allocated slot) and one NCSG person. (Of course the RgySG and RgrSG could opt not to put the two into the allocated slots, in which case you'd have to add one or two to the pool being voted on). So: for that election, would the Council like to 1. Have all five people competing, with CSG's endorsement of up to two meaning only that they prefer them, or 2. Interpret the endorsement as meaning that only those two can stand for election, in which case the pool for the vote would be 2 CSG + 1 NCSG? My preference would be that it be open, option 1. Per Tim, this also gives everyone a chance at being elected. Moreover, I would add that if we don't view SG endorsements of x as taking y out of the pool, there's another option, namely that CSG could choose not to endorse any of them, so that it doesn't have to make uncomfortable choices among colleagues and all get to stand. II. Voting Process I raised this before with the DT and ET, didn't get a clear answer, and there was no further pre-travel discussion. If on the voting call no candidates get majorities of both houses, we can either a) stop there and say nobody wins that slot; b) do a second vote, in which hopefully enough people would shift their positions to put someone over the top, and if the 2nd doesn't work either, just agree nobody wins; or c) keep doing voting rounds until someone wins. Obviously, a) is the easiest, but b) or c) would be fairer to the candidates. I'd personally prefer b). The same would presumably apply to the vote for the unaffiliated slot. It would be really great to clarify these two items before the open meeting. Can we do this by consensus or do we need to have a quick motion? Responses would be very much appreciated. Sorry...i can assure you nobody is more tired of this than I. Bill

2 1

VI motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Dear All: please find attached a comment from the ISPCP constituency regarding the motion on vertical integration. <<ISPCP-VI-comment.doc>> Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

RrSG discussion with Peter today
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Peter and Rod joined our RrSG meeting for a while today and we brought up our questions/concerns about SO endorsement and what that means. Peter expressed that what they want to know is that a candidate is representative of the SO they claim to be from, and that they meet the stated requirements. In other words, basic due diligence - they have a reputation for being collaborative, capable of being analytical and able to review material objectively, etc. All applicants that pass such basic due diligence would be "endorsed." Our current process is designed with a completely different concept of endorsement. Again, at the least, there should not be an arbitrary limit on the number of applicants that a SG endorses. Tim

1 0