I accepted all the formatting changes in both of these documents to make them cleaner and then made some additional deletions and edits that are shown in the attached two files. Caroline, and others, please let me know if you are okay with the edits. Note that I avoided the word "assign" because I thought that that implied something different that what I think we mean. Also, I think that the applications need to be sent to ICANN. We could also ask them to be sent to Glen directly but I am afraid that might cause some confusion. It would be bad if they were sent to the GNSO but not to ICANN and were consequently not accepted. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:46 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: [council] Revised Action Plan / Proposed Process - Self-Identification All, Revised Action Plan and Proposed Process for Endorsement now attached for your review. Edits shown in mark up. Thanks. Kind regards, Caroline. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: 16 February 2010 18:47 To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] FW: Organizational Reviews - 2 Applications for AoC Reviews - GNSO Endorsement - Hi My apologies to all for dragging DT arcana onto the Council list but as we have to vote on the motion in 48 hours any guidance to applicants or other externally oriented additions/clarifications we may want need to get decided. Other internal operational bits the ET can figure out once the applicant pool is clear and from that hopefully we can build toward a standing system for deal with future RT rounds. On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: I understand your point, Bill, but I think that, with one exception, allowing each applicant to decide which SG should consider his/her application will lead to gaming. Yes, in principle there could be several possibilities for gaming, particularly vis the two voted slots, and to the extent that we can address that ex ante it's worth doing. Otherwise we can cross bridges if we come to them as long as we don't change things in ways that may negatively impact candidates. I think we should apply the following "rules". 1. Applicant stated in her/his application that she/he is member of an SG or constituency. One SG/constituency membership --> assign to that SG/constituency More than one --> applicant must designate which one. 2. Applicant did not state in his/her application that she/he is member of an SG or constituency Councilor knowledge of membership in SG/constituency --> assign to that SG/constituency Councilor knowledge of membership in At Large --> assign to ALAC No membership in At Large or SG/constituency --> unaffiliated This is pretty much how I imagined it working. Although of course a) one can have feet in both an SG and ALAC, in which case the former would be the decider if they apply via us, and b) I'd think we'd need agreement from ALAC, which has its own process, rather than unilaterally assigning people to them... Caroline and I are batting around formulations and I imagine she'll be back to the list shortly with something for consideration, I'm signing off for the day. Best, Bill