March 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Given that they are only considering endorsed candidates: In this exclusive context I think the AC/SOs should only be vetting the applications with the goal of making sure they are not just someone off the street saying I want to represent the SO, but that they are/have been involved in the SO and meet the requirements. If they do, they should be *endorsed.* I think this is what Peter and Janis thought we were going to do. If not, then why not just have us make the selection? In my opinion, if we do anything else we are not being fair to these applicants. But if the Council insists on sticking with the current process, SGs should be allowed to forward additional *endorsed* applicants without Council interference and let Peter and Janis decide how they want to deal with it. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do... From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Tue, March 09, 2010 5:25 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "Gomes,Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, council(a)gnso.icann.org, KnobenW(a)telekom.de 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

2 1

RE: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

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. 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. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do... From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Tue, March 09, 2010 3:28 am To: <KnobenW(a)telekom.de>, <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I talked to Janis yesterday and explained the process to him so I believe he has a clear understanding of it. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW(a)telekom.de > Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 2:25 AM > To: tim(a)godaddy.com; william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: AW: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do... > > > I don't see other candidates than the 12 on the website > published. And it's up to the SGs to decide their preferences > according to the rules. I've spoken to Janis this morning, > and he acknowledged our process. He promised to coordinate > with Peter in this regard. > > > Kind regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tim Ruiz > Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. März 2010 02:23 > An: William Drake > Cc: GNSO Council > Betreff: RE: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do... > > > 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(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > Date: Mon, March 08, 2010 3:18 pm > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com > Cc: "GNSO Council " <council(a)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(a)graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > > > >

2 1

RE: [council] Friendly amendments to VI motion
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Thank you both! Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Friendly amendments to VI motion From: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu> Date: Tue, March 09, 2010 3:47 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "Stéphane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Yes, I do - thanks. 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: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>To:"Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>CC:"Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org>Date: 3/9/2010 3:46 AMSubject: Re: [council] Friendly amendments to VI motion Thanks Tim. I accept this as friendly. Mary, do you accept it? If so, Glen, please update the motion to reflect this. Stéphane Le 9 mars 2010 à 09:37, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > Hopefully the final form of this friendly amendment request. > > Replace the section titled "Changes to this Charter" with: > > The Chair will submit requests for substantive changes to this Charter > to the GNSO Council for approval. The Chair may, at any time, refer > questions or requests for clarification on any of the objectives or > definitions contained in this charter to the GNSO Council. Such requests > may be relayed through the Council Liaison. > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Friendly amendments to VI motion > From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Tue, March 09, 2010 1:29 am > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu>, council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > Tim, > > So what is the final version of the amendment you are putting forward? > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > Le 8 mars 2010 à 22:08, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > >> >> That was unintentional. The reference to the WG chair is fine with me. >> >> Tim >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [council] Friendly amendments to VI motion >> From: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu> >> Date: Mon, March 08, 2010 6:34 am >> To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> >> Hi everyone >> >> For some reason I didn't get Tim's email proposing further amendments to >> the amended VI motion, so forgive me if I'm getting something wrong. I >> just wanted to ask Tim if he could explain the request. As I read it as >> forwarded to me, there seems a possibility that dropping the reference >> to the WG Chair from the first sentence raises the possibility that a WG >> member who is NOT the Chair could go directly to seek Council approval, >> bypassing the Chair whose role it is to achieve consensus amongst the >> WG. >> >> 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 >> >> >

1 0

RE: AW: [council] [FWD: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues]
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

I understand that they acknowledged the process. That does not make the process right. Again, if I had understood that this was going to result in the actual blocking of applicants I would never have agreed to it. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AW: [council] [FWD: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues] From: <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> Date: Tue, March 09, 2010 3:20 am To: <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, I wouldn't accept the term "blocking" rather than to try channeling the process in an appropriate way. Otherwise the entire GNSO effort on this would have been meaningless. Once again, Peter and Janis publicly acknowledged this process in the forum yesterday. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tim Ruiz Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. März 2010 09:50 An: William Drake Cc: GNSO Council Betreff: RE: [council] [FWD: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues] Bill, it was simply the most current email expressing my understanding. There were others during the course of the dt, and very early on. I'll see what I can find since it seems to be important to you, and I must evidently produce something to be taken as being truthful by you. In any event, it doesn't change my position that it is inappropriate for this to be a blocking exercise. I never saw it that way and do not agree with any process that serves as such. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] [FWD: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues] From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Tue, March 09, 2010 2:22 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> 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(a)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(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > Date: Tue, March 02, 2010 4:40 am > To: gnso-arr-dt(a)icann.org > Cc: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)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(a)graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************

1 0

RE: [council] Friendly amendments to VI motion
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Hopefully the final form of this friendly amendment request. Replace the section titled "Changes to this Charter" with: The Chair will submit requests for substantive changes to this Charter to the GNSO Council for approval. The Chair may, at any time, refer questions or requests for clarification on any of the objectives or definitions contained in this charter to the GNSO Council. Such requests may be relayed through the Council Liaison. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Friendly amendments to VI motion From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Tue, March 09, 2010 1:29 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu>, council(a)gnso.icann.org Tim, So what is the final version of the amendment you are putting forward? Thanks, Stéphane Le 8 mars 2010 à 22:08, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > > That was unintentional. The reference to the WG chair is fine with me. > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Friendly amendments to VI motion > From: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu> > Date: Mon, March 08, 2010 6:34 am > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Hi everyone > > For some reason I didn't get Tim's email proposing further amendments to > the amended VI motion, so forgive me if I'm getting something wrong. I > just wanted to ask Tim if he could explain the request. As I read it as > forwarded to me, there seems a possibility that dropping the reference > to the WG Chair from the first sentence raises the possibility that a WG > member who is NOT the Chair could go directly to seek Council approval, > bypassing the Chair whose role it is to achieve consensus amongst the > WG. > > 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 > >

4 4

FW: Yet another Kinderis...
by Gomes, Chuck March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Great news. Congratulations to Adrian and mum. Chuck ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 9:33 PM To: pat.kane(a)verisign.com; Tews, Shane; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Yet another Kinderis... Chuck, Pat and Shane, Lilah Anne Kinderis was born at 2.35am (local time) on Tuesday, 9th March, 2010. She weighed 8 pounds and has massive feet (maybe an Olympic swimmer!). Mum and baby are doing well. Dad is very thirsty! She is a super looking type... just like her ol' man! Although from the pic she may be part Yoda! Thanks for your inquiries and support. Look forward to sharing a drink in Brussels. Chuck - please pass on to Council when/ if appropriate (I am not sure I'll make the call for Wednesday as yet). Regards, Adrian Kinderis Chief Executive Officer AusRegistry Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Web: www.ausregistry.com.au <http://www.ausregistry.com.au> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

1 0

RE: [council] [FWD: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues]
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Bill, it was simply the most current email expressing my understanding. There were others during the course of the dt, and very early on. I'll see what I can find since it seems to be important to you, and I must evidently produce something to be taken as being truthful by you. In any event, it doesn't change my position that it is inappropriate for this to be a blocking exercise. I never saw it that way and do not agree with any process that serves as such. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] [FWD: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues] From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Tue, March 09, 2010 2:22 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> 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(a)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(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > Date: Tue, March 02, 2010 4:40 am > To: gnso-arr-dt(a)icann.org > Cc: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)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(a)graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************

4 4

RE: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

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(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Mon, March 08, 2010 3:18 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com Cc: "GNSO Council " <council(a)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(a)graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************

5 4

RE: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

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(a)indom.com> Date: Tue, March 09, 2010 1:41 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "William Drake" <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch>, "GNSO Council " <council(a)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(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > Date: Mon, March 08, 2010 3:18 pm > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com > Cc: "GNSO Council " <council(a)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(a)graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > >

2 1

[FWD: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues]
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Bill, 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. At no time after this or after my earlier similar comments did anyone on the DT correct me if they knew something else to be true or if they were working under a different assumption. However, you clearly were as is evident in your comments to Peter and Janis. My agreement with any of this was given with the understanding that we are endorsing not blocking candidates. In any event, I am glad you are such a quick read. You'll have to forgive me and other members of our SG, I guess we're a little slow. While we had few actual RrSG designated candidates, that doesn't mean we want to ignore or discount the rest. Hopefully, the other SGs are not doing that either. Bottom line for me is that if someone took time to complete the necessary documents to apply, their application should find its way to Peter and Janis for consideration. Endorsement of an SO or AC may be a factor to consider, but it should not be required to be considered. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Date: Tue, March 02, 2010 11:02 am To: gnso-arr-dt(a)icann.org Cc: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> 1. I could see us doing a second round of voting, but if we don't get agreement we should just submit the apps noting the support that each received. 2. I think meeting the diversity requirements within the group that we put forward will be difficult and we shouldn't get too caught up in that. Again, we just submit what we have with the relevant support for each noted. 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. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Tue, March 02, 2010 4:40 am To: gnso-arr-dt(a)icann.org Cc: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)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

2 1