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

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

The paper does say that 'the processes for endorsing candidates should be left 
to the governing rules and practices of each SO/AC' and that the 'Applicants 
should apply through their respective SOs/ACs' so the assumption, I believe, is 
that we do have some sort of role, although that role needs clarified.
 
Kind regards
 
Caroline.
 
From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: 11 January 2010 17:56
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] ARR Drafting Team - suggested framework for comments
 
hi all,
 
great questions.  rereading the draft i think we need to amplify one part of 
the 2nd question -- whether it's expected that the SOs are expected to be 
involved *at all* in the selection process.  Section 3.1.1 speaks of SO/AC 
"representatives" on the review teams, but the notion of SOs *selecting* their 
representatives doesn't appear in the process-diagram in Section 3.1.3 at all.  
instead, it looks like the selectors pull from an unfiltered pool of 
volunteers.  so my edit to the question goes like this;
 
 "One central issue is the role of the SOs [MIKEY (if any)] 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  such] 
endorsements?"
 
m
 
On Jan 11, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:



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.
 
- - - - - - - - -
phone    651-647-6109  
fax                           866-280-2356  
web        www.haven2.com
handle   OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)