RE: [gnso-arr-dt] ARR Drafting Team - suggested framework for comments

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Very helpful Caroline.  Thanks.
 
Based on our discussion so far, I identified below what I think are
possible areas of Caroline's outline in 1 for which we may want to
submit comments.  I am not sure we need to comment on other areas of the
outline but encourage others to speak up if they differ.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer
        Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 6:56 AM
        To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: glen@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] ARR Drafting Team - suggested framework
for comments
        
        

        Dear all,

        Personally speaking, I am not 100% on board with the fact that
the Review Team members (and indeed the independent experts) are
ultimately selected by the GAC Chair and Board Chair/ICANN CEO, rather
than by the stakeholder groups themselves. However, since this is
provided for in 9.3.1 of the AoC, I guess that's not even on the table
for discussion or indeed group comment. And since that is the case, to
my mind it does seem to suggest that, as Chuck points out, the task of
the Review Team members is not to directly represent the groups they
come from but rather to review the evidence gathered to determine
whether the indicators were satisfied and then document those
conclusions.

        Nonetheless, I think it is important that this point is
clarified - ie, are the Review Team members really working on an
individual / independent basis or are they in any way working to
represent their stakeholder groups? Also, I would suggest that we
attempt to define the purpose of the public comment period and whether
an appointment could in fact be overturned by community comment (and
what could trigger such an overturn?).

        

        Since the Selectors (the GAC Chair etc) will be working to a
list of human and professional skills / evaluation criteria for
selection purposes, I think it would be worth pushing for early
publication of same. There is little point in the GNSO Council trying to
come up with a list of selection criteria for the pool of volunteers
which could be completely at odds with that used by the Selectors. 

        

        To help organize our thoughts and in advance of Wednesday's
call, below is a suggested framework for our comments. Please feel free
to edit as you see fit. We may not reach agreement on all these issues
of course, in which case the list of items could be reduced.

        

        1.      General Comments on Draft ICANN Proposal

        

        *       Interpretation of AoC Document [any inconsistencies /
need for clarification?][Gomes, Chuck]  It seems to me that we need to
clarify the following with regard to the GNSO: 1) What is the GNSO's
role in the selection of the RT member(s) from the GNSO? [Does the GNSO
simply endorse volunteers that are solicited by the Selectors? Does the
GNSO develop and implement a process to identify volunteers that the
Selectors then choose from?]  2) How is/are the GNSO RT member(s)
expected to fulfill their RT duties in relationship to the GNSO?  [ i)
Are they expected to function independently of the GNSO? ii) Should they
solicit input from the GNSO during the review process? ii) Are they
supposed to serve on the RT as representatives of the GNSO or rather as
objective reviewers of the AoC indicators?]  I think our first priority
may need to be to seek clarification of these issues right away, before
we complete the rest of our proposed comments.

        *       Composition-Selection-Size of Review Team [and selection
of Experts][Gomes, Chuck]  Is one GNSO member per review team
sufficient?  Note that the answer to this may be dependent on the
clarification we get above regarding 2) above (How is/are the GNSO RT
member(s) expected to fulfill their RT duties in relationship to the
GNSO?)  If the GNSO RT member(s) are expected to serve primarily as
independent reviewers of the predefined indicators without input from
the GNSO during the review process, then the number of GNSO RT members
may be less critical and the qualifications we should look for need to
revolve around identifying candidates who are objective and unbiased in
their evaluation skills.  On the other hand, if the GNSO RT member(s)
are expected to represent GNSO views in the review process, the number
of GNSO RT members becomes more critical and the skills needed are
different as well.

        *       Proposed Review Methodology[Gomes, Chuck]  As I tried to
communicate in previous emails, I personally think we should submit
comments about the "indicators" used to perform the reviews.  I think
they need to be very clear and as objectively measurable as possible to
avoid the risk of the reviews becoming a political exercise where RT
members from various organizations use the reviews to lobby for their
interests.  I believe that the more political the reviews are allowed to
become, the risks to the GNSO will increase.  Whatever the final RTs
looks like, I think we can assume that the GNSO members will be a
minority and we can also assume that the GNSO probably will be the most
impacted by review results.  

        *       Proposed List of Activities 

        *       Proposed Timeline-Review Cycles

        *       Proposed Budget

        

        

        2.      Draft Selection Criteria for GNSO Council rep[Gomes,
Chuck]  Note that these are highly dependent on the clarifications
needed in the first bullet under 1 above.  

        

        *       Qualitative criteria for selection of candidates

        *       Quantitative criteria for selection of candidates

        *       Selection / Endorsement Process 

        

        

        Many thanks,

        Kind regards,

        Caroline.