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

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Bill.
 
I agree that by submitting a small pool of candidates, we can exercise some 
form of light control on the final selection. And I also agree that we should 
suggest that the SOs, or at the very least the RT members, can suggest 
candidates for the Expert positions.
 
As regards representation of SOs by the RT members, perhaps it would be helpful 
to compare it to the role that the IRT members recently fulfilled – they kept 
their SOs abreast of any major developments and perhaps passed along consensus 
inputs from their groups, therefore being somewhat accountable to them. 
However, by and large, they acted with a degree of separation. Now, I 
understand that that model was adopted in the interests of getting the work 
done within a very tight timeline but perhaps it’s a similar approach here. I 
think it is worth getting a common understanding on that. 
 
In terms of the number of relevant reps on each group, that’s also how I 
interpret that section under the Stability/Security/Resiliency heading – ie, 
1-2 reps from a pool containing the GNSO, SSNSO, ASO and ALAC. I don’t see why 
that group should be limited in this way. And if it is, the comment 
period/opportunity had better be robust.
 
Caroline.
 
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 11 January 2010 14:58
To: Caroline Greer
Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx; glen@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] ARR Drafting Team - suggested framework for comments
 
Hi
 
On Jan 11, 2010, at 5:56 AM, Caroline Greer wrote:



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. 
We went through the same issues in the IGF with the MAG.  Many stakeholders 
felt they should be able to directly appoint people, but the ultimate solution 
was a centralized source of decision making that could pick freely from 
stakeholder nominees and, if desired, others (how the SG was to operate was 
never formalized).  In this case, my understanding of the staff doc is that the 
Selectors must pick from the volunteers identified AC/SOs, so that bounds 
things a bit, so if an AC/SO has a candidate or two it really wants it 
shouldn't submit too large a pool.  An unknown is the independent experts; it 
seems the Selectors have free reign here.  We might consider whether we think 
the AC/SOs should at least be able to suggest names for these slots, 
recognizing the Selectors would still have discretion.
        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.
Personally, I don't see that this entirely follows from the Selectors being 
able to pick, for at least two reasons.  First, per previous, it's entirely 
possible the 'objective' metrics will not viewed as objective and sufficient.  
For example, let's say you try to measure transparency by whether documents are 
publicly released in advance and other obvious procedurals.  Some parties may 
have had experiences and concerns that are not captured by such metrics.  I can 
certainly say that noncommercial folks have often experienced some murky 
processes that would not be reflected by just checking such boxes, and it's 
exceedingly easy to imagine some denouncing sole reliance on this approach as a 
white wash, which would not be good for the process.  So I hope the RTs will 
have some means of taking on board particular narrative experiences that the 
metrics may not capture.
 
Second, in the IGF, MAG people have been formally treated as independent 
experts, and this has generated issues. Some members have opted to coordinate 
with and be guided by the stakeholder groups that nominated them, subject to 
the Charter House rule etc, while others have acted as sort of free spirits, to 
the displeasure of those who nominated them.  I think it'd be good to have a 
clear and harmonized understanding either way.  My preference would be that RT 
members not be 'representatives' in the sense that they are bound to do 
whatever their AC/SO says, but that they do have some obligation to keep their 
nominators up to speed on the main issues with some periodic reporting and be 
prepared to at least pass along any important consensus inputs received by the 
AC/SO or a notable minority thereof.  Bottom line, I don't think it'd be good 
for the process for any AC/SO or SG to feel disenfranchised, like they can't 
even get their main concerns on the table where relevant to the task.  That'd 
be asking for trouble; do we want to risk groups denouncing the process as 
unaccountable and its decisions as unreflective community views?


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?).
If the Selectors must pick from the nominees, this presumably wouldn't be a 
problem.  But am I reading that incorrectly?


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.
 
Agree



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?]
*       Composition-Selection-Size of Review Team [and selection of Experts]
Aside from the size issue, how do people feel about this bit from the draft, 
"Not␣all␣SOs/ACs␣should␣ 
necessarily␣be␣involved␣in␣all␣review␣teams,␣but␣only␣those␣that␣by␣their␣mission␣or␣
 focus␣are␣relevant␣to␣the␣subject␣of␣each␣review."  For example, the draft has 
the security stability group including "GNSO,␣ccNSO,␣ASO,␣ALAC␣(1␣2)␣"  Does 
this mean that GNSO might not have someone on this team, as we'd have to share 
1 or 2 slots with four bodies (if I'm reading right)?


*       Proposed Review Methodology
*       Proposed List of Activities 
*       Proposed Timeline-Review Cycles
*       Proposed Budget
We could in principle comment on all these if we have concerns, but my guess is 
some will fall out.  Do we have concerns with the time line, budget, etc?


2.      Draft Selection Criteria for GNSO Council rep
*       Qualitative criteria for selection of candidates
*       Quantitative criteria for selection of candidates
*       Selection / Endorsement Process
 
Am I correctly recalling that AC/SOs can nominate people who are in their 
communities but not in elected positions?  If so, are there any special issues 
concerning how choices between councilors and non-councilors would be dealt 
with?
 
Best,
 
Bill