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

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

I inserted a few responses below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of William Drake
        Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 9:58 AM
        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.[Gomes, Chuck]  Seems 
like a good suggestion to me. 

                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. [Gomes, Chuck]  I agree that it 
does not follow from 'the Selectors being able to pick'.  First, per previous, 
it's entirely possible the 'objective' metrics will not viewed as objective and 
sufficient. [Gomes, Chuck]  Agreed.  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.[Gomes, Chuck]   Agree. 
 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. [Gomes, 
Chuck]  Well put.  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)?[Gomes, Chuck]  Note that 
not all groups will proposed for all review teams but the GNSO was included in 
all of them.  We may want to make a brief statement that we believe that all 
four review teams are relevant to the GNSO. 
        

                

                *       Proposed Review Methodology[Gomes, Chuck]  Per my 
previous message, I think we should comment about the 'indicators'. 

                *       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. [Gomes, Chuck]  Agree.  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?[Gomes, Chuck]   I don't recall 
seeing that anywhere.  If so, are there any special issues concerning how 
choices between councilors and non-councilors would be dealt with?[Gomes, 
Chuck]  Those are issues that I think we need to deal with ourselves.  A 
related questions: would it be better to nominate GNSO insiders or not? 

        Best,

        Bill