NetChoice suggestions for team selection and process

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Comment on discussion draft for Affirmation Reviews
by Steve DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice
8-Feb-2010
 
*Team Selection and Process Recommendations*
 
At the core of ICANN's new Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) are a series of
reviews that will assess ICANN¹s progress toward critical goals like
accountability, security, stability, and the public interest.   In an
earlier comment I offered a substantive definition for public interest. <
http://forum.icann.org/lists/affrev-draft-processes/msg00000.html >  This
comment concerns process suggestions that will help make these review teams
more independent and effective.
 
Independent review teams, working within clear parameters, have the
potential to make ICANN a stronger institution by identifying key issues and
proposing workable solutions.  On the other hand, teams that lack
independence and effective processes will struggle to make a real impact in
the short time allowed by the AOC. That's why it's critical that teams be
designed in a manner that provides adequate representation for stakeholders
and a framework for success.
 
A primary issue is to determine how the review teams are constructed. ICANN
is already soliciting volunteers for the first review team, even though it's
not clear what the makeup and selection process will be. While it is true
that the first review must begin as soon as possible, I believe that a
broadcast call for volunteers should have come after - not before - the
determination of selection processes and parameters for eligibility.
 
Below are three simple recommendations regarding the initial review of
ICANN's accountability, transparency, and interests of global internet
users. 
 
1. ICANN constituencies should work through supporting organizations to put
forth candidates for the review team. This will help to ensure that the
teams truly reflect the needs and concerns of stakeholder groups. While it
probably does not make sense to require that each supporting organization
put forth a single candidate, constituencies could work through supporting
organizations to develop slates of acceptable candidates from which the
ICANN board chair and GAC chair would choose team members.
 
2. ICANN Board Members should not be eligible to serve on review teams.
Other than the board chair, who is required to serve on the accountability
review team, members of the ICANN board and staff should minimize their
direct involvement in the team. Much of the focus of these teams will be to
review decisions and processes of the ICANN board and staff.  Reviewers
should be encouraged to do this freely and from the perspective of affected
stakeholders. 
 
3. Constituencies and Supporting Organizations should be enlisted to help
develop scope and metrics for the terms of reference for the review. Members
of ICANN¹s constituencies can help guide review teams toward effective lines
of inquiry and success measures.  ICANN should make a point to develop the
scope and parameters of these teams by making as much use as possible of the
bottom-up process. 
 
-- 
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
+1.202.420.7482