On Jun 13, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

I personally support the motion as proposed because I think the required threshold of 60% of each house for any additional candidates provides more than enough protection to ensure SG support. That would require 5 affirmative votes for the CPH and 8 affirmative votes of the NCPH, so no SG could control the vote, not even with the NCA vote. With that protection, it seems problematic to add more complexity to the process.

At the same time, if there are those who cannot support the original motion as is, I think I could support a modification that would do the following:

1. If the Council decides to try to improve the diversity of the pool of GNSO endorsed candidates, they would first consider those alternate candidates proposed by the SGs, if any.

Wouldn't we do this anyone as a matter of courtesy and common sense without codifying it? If there's a pool of 8 candidates and SGs have come to internal agreement that they could support persons x y and z, presumably their reps would indicate that when the conversation begins and we'd commence talking about x y and z before moving on to the five nobody had yet preferred. Would anyone really say well, your SG may like Ms. x but I refuse to talk about her and insist we start with someone nobody's said they favor?

(One flaw with this as Bill noted in our meeting last week is that an SG could submit all remaining candidates as alternates.)

After I said that, somewhat in jest, Kristina specified in the amendment, "notify Council of one or two additional candidates whom it could support, if available."

2. If the Council is unable to approve any additional candidates to improve diversity of the pool using only SG proposed alternates, then they could consider the entire set of candidates requesting GNSO endorsement.

3. I would add one new wrinkle to this: SG’s should only propose alternates that are of a different geographical location or gender than their primary candidate. In fact this would probably be a useful amendment to the original motion.

I'd favor that, but not if it's tied to prohibiting the Council from even considering people who were not so designated.

What the IPC is proposing is that only applicants that SGs have previously designated as acceptable back-ups could even be considered by the Council for this purpose.

[Gomes, Chuck] I didn’t understand it as this restrictive. I thought Kristina said that the SG alternatives would be considered first; then if that didn’t result in a successful resolution, other candidates could be considered.

That's what you suggested as an alternative. Kristina's text says

3. Change third bullet of #2 to read: Each stakeholder group is encouraged to (a) identify in its internal deliberations and (b) notify Council of one or two additional candidates whom it could support, if available, in the event that the diversity procedure outlined in item 4 below is utilized.

4. Change the now-third sentence of point 4 to read: If, however, the list does not meet the above mentioned diversity objectives, the Council as a whole may choose to endorse up to two additional candidates, from among those identified by the stakeholder groups under item 2, who would help to give the list of GNSO nominees the desired balance. If consideration of these additional stakeholder group-identified candidates does not meet the diversity objectives, the Council may refer to the GNSO applicant pool to identify these additional candidates.

So anyone in the applicant pool who has not been specifically endorsed for possible consideration could not be considered.