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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

ah!  right you are -- sorry, i missed that.

never mind.  :-)

that begs the question -- what if the SO only forwards one candidate for the 
slot?

at any rate, i think the questions are fine, and agree that we would benefit 
from a speedy response.

m


On Jan 11, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Caroline Greer wrote:

> 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.)
>  

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