Thanks Volker for sharing the Registrars' decision to the list. This will lead to the effect that the 60% threshold needed in both houses to add 2 candidates to the endorsed list shall not be achieved what I'm sorry for. Some thoughts from my side: 1. The Rrs' decision is fully in line with the respective GNSO process - no doubt. 2. It may be a theoretical question whether the decision would have been the same in case there were non-US candidates from the CPH. 3. The GNSO - when it developed the endorsement process - included with intent the diversity criteria to ensure input to the AOC review teams in particular from the "policy related" community as being diverse. That time it was already clear that the full slate of candidates coming from all SOs/ACs could cope with the diversity criteria. If the GNSO as a whole is willing to follow your argumentation then we should initiate revising the endorsement process by removing the present council's role to oversee the diversity balance. It would save a lot of time and annoying discussions. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Original Message----- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 10:19:42 +0100 Subject: Re: [council] GNSO ATRT2 Applicants (minor change to improve clarity) From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net> To: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Dear Jonathan, thank you for making sure the process remains on track despite the difficult deadlines and our inablility to resolve this early on our last call. During the Amsterdam meeting the RrSG councilors have met and discussed the ballot, and we have elected to abstain on a vote on the two additional candidates. We believe the GNSO has endorsed four candidates for the ATRT that are highly capable for the role. The questions of geographic and gender diversity are fully available to the Chairs of the Board and GAC through the full slate of candidates from all parts of the community. Best regards, Volker Greimann All, The GNSO Council has now received endorsements from all four SGs. As a reminder, the GNSO process is as follows: The Council will consider the resulting list of up to four nominees at its next teleconference. If 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 the applicant pool who would help to give the list of GNSO nominees the desired balance. In this case, the Council would hold a vote during its teleconference, with sixty percent support of both houses represented in the Council being required for endorsement. If no candidate obtains that level of support, the list of endorsements obtained via the bottom-up process of stakeholder group nominations will be deemed final and forwarded to ICANN. Please note: · The candidate list meets the GNSO agreed gender diversity requirements in that not all endorsed candidates are of the same gender. · However it does not meet the GNSO agreed geographic diversity requirements in that all endorsed candidates are from a single (North America) ICANN region. Therefore the slate needs to be added to with (up to two) additional SG supported candidates in order to get closer to meeting geographic diversity requirements. The two SG supported candidates that assist us in meeting this requirement are: Marie-Laure Lemineur F Latin America NCSG Olivier Mouron M Europe CSG Therefore we will ballot the Council on list (since a teleconference is now not practical ahead of the deadline) in order to see if either or both (of Marie-Laure Lemineur and Olivier Mouron) have the support of 60% of both houses of the Council. PLEASE CAN YOU KEEP AN ALERT VIEW ON THE COUNCIL LIST FOR THE BALLOT WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE NO LATER THAN 23H59 UTC TODAY (24TH JANUARY 2013). THE BALLOT WILL CLOSE 23H59 UTC ON 26TH JANUARY. Thank-you. Jonathan