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

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

I would be supportive of that since the response affects so much of our
overall response. And it would help focus our comments.
 
Here are the comments / questions I would suggest, based on our email
conversations - 
 
*        The GNSO Council is currently considering the Draft Staff
Proposal on the Affirmation Reviews [Requirements and Implementation
Processes] with a view to submitting comments by end January.
*        One central issue is the role of the SOs in selecting RT
members - is this to be viewed as an initial filtering process for the
benefit of the Selectors and how much emphasis will the Selectors put on
the endorsements?
*        Are the Selectors in a position to give early insight into the
selection criteria that they will use? This will greatly assist the GNSO
[and other SOs] in its own selection process and will help ensure that
we are not all working at odds with one another.
*        What degree of independence will the RT members be expected to
show from their SOs? Are they expected to be direct representatives in
some way, high level communicators or independent actors?
 
Caroline.
 
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 11 January 2010 15:50
To: Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: glen@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] ARR Drafting Team - suggested framework for
comments
 
If our DT thinks we should seek clarification right away regarding the
first bullet under 1, I can send a request to Janis and Peter.  We just
need to agree on what our request would say.
 
Chuck
         
        
________________________________

        From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 10:35 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: glen@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] ARR Drafting Team - suggested
framework for comments
        Thanks Chuck.
         
        I think those three subsections under (1) are indeed the most
important and perhaps we should focus on those for now and include any
additional comments under a general section or see if the wider group
has any other thoughts when we come to present this.
         
        As for submitting comments about the indicators, I absolutely
agree that some sort of comment should be made as to the need for clear
and objective indicators -  indicators that can be linked back to
ICANN's remit and specific goals. 
         
        Kind regards,
         
        Caroline.
         
        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: 11 January 2010 14:59
        To: Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: glen@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] ARR Drafting Team - suggested
framework for comments
         
        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.