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

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

These questions look pretty good to me.  If anyone one wants to edit
them, please do so not later than 8 pm EST today; I will send them to
Janis and Peter after then.
 
Chuck

________________________________

        From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 11:03 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: glen@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] ARR Drafting Team - suggested
framework for comments
        
        
        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.