[gnso-arr-dt] FW: Questioins regarding proposed AoC Review

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

With Janis's permission, here are his personal responses to the questions I 
sent him.
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: Janis Karklins [mailto:janis.karklins@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:29 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Peter Dengate Thrush'
Cc: 'Denise Michel'
Subject: RE: Questioins regarding proposed AoC Review



Chuck

 

All the questions you are asking, I hop will be answered during the public 
comment period. AoC does not provide clear guidance on the issue of selection. 
It states the following:

The review will be performed by volunteer community members and the review team 
will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include the 
following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the Chair of 
the Board of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information 
of the DOC, representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory Committees and 
Supporting Organizations and independent experts. Composition of the review 
team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC 
members) and the Chair of the Board of ICANN.

 

We/community need(s) to define not only composition, but also size of the RT, 
distribution of seats between different stakeholder groups and constituencies. 
The selection process should be right and accepted (or equally unaccepted) by 
all constituencies of ICANN. The role of SOs and ACs in the nomination and 
selection process will be determining, though my reading of the AoC is that the 
final decision belongs to Selectors.

 

In my personal opinion the A&T RT (RTs for other reviews would be different) 
should consist of 15 members (1/3 – governmental and 2/3 non-governmental, 
ex-officio members including in this number and proportion). Main SOs should 
have more than 1 representative in it. I would go for 2 or 3 which are selected 
by the Selectors out of pool of volunteers which are endorsed by the SOs. 
Direct nomination of members of the RT by the SO is delicate from the overall 
balance point of view. (We may end up with group of 15 mail Caucasians living 
on the East or West coast). Criteria of selection, apart from balancing 
elements, should be knowledge (in broad sense), ability of independent analysis 
and commitment to the review process. 

 

GNSO may disagree with me, as well as GAC may (discussion is just starting). It 
is too early to prejudge outcome of the community comments which I hope soon 
will start flow in quantity.

 

Hope it will help GNSO to shape its views on the selection process and 
composition of the RT.

 

Best regards

JK 

 

________________________________

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: otrdiena, 2010. gada 12. janvārī 2:35
To: Peter Dengate Thrush; Janis Karklins
Cc: Denise Michel
Subject: Questioins regarding proposed AoC Review

 

Peter/Janis,

 

The GNSO Council is presently reviewing the draft Staff proposal for the AoC 
with the intent of submitting comments.  To enable us to prepare our comments 
as well as to guide us in the need for the GNSO to endorse volunteers from our 
community for the AoC review teams, we would appreciate any clarity you can 
provide regarding the following:

*          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?

Chuck Gomes