Good points Bill.  Because two candidate names were submitted, the RySG faced the choice of making a decision quickly to accommodate a quick replacement on the SSR RT as requested by the team or to develop a process for endorsing one replacement and then implementing that process.   The latter option would have taken three to four weeks at a minimum and synching with a Council meeting would have likely delayed providing a replacement on the RT at least until the Cartagena meeting.  As can be seen, we chose the faster solution.

Chuck

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 4:59 AM
To: Caroline Greer
Cc: Rosette, Kristina; GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 18 November 2010 at 11:00 UTC

Hi Caroline

On Nov 15, 2010, at 6:33 PM, Caroline Greer wrote:

We had two quality candidates and as a group, we felt unable to choose between them Kristina.

It is our understanding that nothing prevents us from forwarding two names.

It's true that the drafting team for the RT endorsement process didn't specify modalities for replacing people; it was pretty clear that addressing multiple circumstances would involve additional politics and tortured verbiage.  Nevertheless, one would think that the intention of the core principle, "Each stakeholder group may endorse one applicant to serve as a representative in a given review team" is pretty clear and applies to replacements as well.  As you know, neither the DT nor the Council ever discussed the possibility of SGs getting to put forward more names than their counterparts in any context, the whole point was uniformity and parity, so it's a bit hard to see the absence of a specific prohibition as a mandate.

Whatever….Hopefully someone will not cite this down the road as a precedent for endorsing multiple names at the front end etc.

Cheers,

Bill