RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft ARR Letter

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Looks excellent, and with Chuck's notes/changes. I do have one comment
regarding the Chatham House rule, but I am not asking for or suggesting
any change to the text below.

In regards to communications to the review team from any AC/SO itself,
as a body, I would not want the AC/SO members to lose the ability to
know what that body is communicating and how that communication is
characterized. So applying the Catham House rule to those specific
communications may be problematic.

Tim
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft ARR Letter
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, January 17, 2010 4:31 pm
To: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
<gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

You guys are good!  Very well done.
 
I inserted a few comments below.
 
Chuck

From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 1:38 PM
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft ARR Letter



Hello,


Hope everyone's week end is going well...Following consultation with
Caroline and Zahid, below is a short initial draft that tries to take on
board the various points people have made on the call and online.  If it
misses anything or you'd prefer other wording, have at it and
edit/amend/substitute to taste.  If I recall correctly Chuck said we
should get this to Council by Wednesday, so we have a couple days to
whack it around...[Gomes, Chuck]  Documents need to be distributed at
least 8 days before consideration so Wednesday would be the latest it
could be sent and preferably early on Wednesday.  In the case of the
RySG, we have a meeting early Wednesday so it would really be helpful to
send it out on Tuesday.  If possible, let's try to finalize it by COB on
Monday.  All SGs will need to get feedback from their groups in advance
of the Council meeting so the more time we can allow for that the
better. 


Cheers,


Bill


---------------




The GNSO Council largely supports the approach outlined in the draft
proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation
Processes.  In the hope of strengthening the processes and ICANN’s
ability to satisfy the AoC requirements, we would like to offer the
following observations and recommendations.


1.  Size and Composition of the Review Teams

The draft argues that, “there is no doubt that the review teams should
be kept small. This self-evident assumption is confirmed by the volume
of literature on group dynamics.  [sic] Also, the optimal size of
working, consensus-based groups is often considered to be between six
and eight individuals.”   Accordingly, the draft recommends teams of
that size.  We have four concerns with this approach. 

First, a broader review of the relevant literatures---e.g. on
negotiation analysis, collective action, and international
cooperation---would reveal that the relationship between group size and
effectiveness is highly indeterminate.  Indeed, whether collaborative
decision-making processes succeed or fail depends on a variety of
contextual and other factors that are wholly unrelated to group size. 
Second, larger groups successfully undertake consensus-based work in
ICANN and related institutional settings all the time, and the review
teams are likely to include people from the community that have
participated in such efforts and understand what is required to achieve
productive and well-supported outcomes.

Third, what really is self-evident is that the review teams will need to
perform a great deal of work on demanding schedules.  This is especially
so with regard to the first review on accountability and transparency.  
Even with the envisaged staff support, the members of very small teams
would likely be hard pressed to manage the work loads alongside all
their other responsibilities.  Designating alternates might reduce the
risk of any members proving unable to fully participate or handle the
tasks at hand, but relying on alternates could raise other process
management issues.

Fourth, selecting just one member from each relevant of the AC/SOs (or
less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency team) seems
especially problematic.  In particular, it would greatly reduce the
teams’ ability to leverage the available expertise, fail to reflect
the community’s diverse interests and experiences with respect to the
issues under assessment, and hence could reduce the degree of “buy
in” on the final products.  These concerns are particularly acute with
respect to the GNSO, which comprises four broad stakeholder groups that
have unique roles and perspectives and that could be mostly deeply
impacted by the results of the AoC reviews (e.g. on such issues as
competition and consumer trust and choice, WHOIS, and the policy
development process).   [To add, per Chuck?:  It might also be noted
that GNSO registrants pay fees that fund well over 90% of ICANN's
activities.][Gomes, Chuck] [I don't think there is anything to lose in
including this but will accept the will of the group.] 

Accordingly, we suggest that the review teams be expanded to twelve to
fifteen members, and that the GNSO be allocated at least two slots
[Zahid suggests "two or even three"][Gomes, Chuck]  [How about something
like this: ". . . the GNSO be allocated two to three slots"]  on each
team, including for the one for Security, Stability and Resiliency.  We
recognize that these revisions would have budgetary and operational
implications, but we are convinced that they are necessary to fulfill
the AoC mandate and to ensure high-quality and broadly supported
outcomes.

Given the important roles they will play in the process and the
importance of engaging specialized expertise from across the community,
we also suggest that AC/SOs be able to suggest Independent Experts for
consideration by the Selectors.

Finally, we would appreciate any clarification as to the evaluation
criteria that will be used to select from the pool of nominees. This
will better enable the GNSO to undertake its own assessment of
candidates and to maximize nominees’ degree of fit with the desired
skill sets and expertise.

 
2. Communication and Coordination with the Community

We agree with the draft that Review team members are not to
“represent” particularistic interests, and that they should be
broadly neutral and focused on the collective good of the ICANN
community as a whole.  Participants must have the operational autonomy
needed to function in this manner, and should not be unduly influenced
by the immediate debates and sources of contention that arise across the
ICANN ecosystem.  But at the same time, it would be undesirable for the
teams to work in hermetically sealed boxes cut off from the community,
or to rely only on the public comment periods for input on the review
processes.  A mechanism should be established to allow an appropriate
measure of two-way communication when needed.

The GNSO Council therefore proposes that review team members drawn from
the AC/SOs be mandated to periodically update their nominating bodies on
the main developments and issues of direct relevance to them.  In
parallel, these team members should be able to solicit inputs from their
SO/ACs when this would be helpful, and be prepared to pass along
unsolicited inputs that their nominating bodies agree would be
particularly important to take under consideration.  Obviously, any such
communications would need to respect reasonable restrictions like the
Chatham House rule[Gomes, Chuck]  [Should add a footnote to explain.] ,
and the SO/ACs should be expected to exercise prudence and to only make
use of the opportunity when it is necessary to support the teams and/or
convey major concerns. 

3.  Support Teams

Even if the size of the review teams is expanded per the above, managing
all the work envisaged over extended time periods will be very
challenging. As such, it is reasonable to expect that there will be
instances where some task-specific support may be needed, e.g. with data
collection, that would impose a substantial burden on both team members
and the staff.  One way of addressing these challenges would be to
constitute a support team for each review that can be turned to for
targeted assistance.  Such teams could [Gomes, Chuck] be drawn from the
pools of nominees that were not selected for review team membership.  If
those pools were not sufficiently robust or did not offer the
specialized expertise needed, the SO/ACs could suggest additional names
for consideration by the Selectors.  [Zahid suggests: "Adequate staff
support would also be necessary and appropriate administrative costs
associated with intensive staff support should be allocated to the work
to be undertaken by the review team.][Gomes, Chuck]  [I am fine with
Zahid's addition.] 


4.  Operational Considerations

The GNSO Council wishes to comment on three elements of the draft
concerning the working methods and conduct of the review teams.

First, we would like to emphasize the importance of employing
quantitative performance indicators that are as objective and measurable
as possible and are sensitive to ICANN’s particular characteristics. 
In parallel, it is essential that the qualitative indicators and
associated methodology effectively draw on the range of expert analysis
and capture community members’ actual experiences with the respective
processes and issues.  Designing and employing these indicators in a
neutral, balanced and scientific manner will be a significant challenge,
but it is also a prerequisite for evaluative fairness and good community
receptions of the reports.

Second, while the review teams must conduct their own exercises and come
to their own conclusions, it important to recall that ICANN has long
undertaken a range of process assessments that could be drawn on, some
of which are ongoing.  In this connection, we note in particular that
AOC 9.1.e) calls for an assessment of the policy development process. 
The GNSO is of course actively engaged in such an effort in the context
of its current restructuring and respectfully suggests that the results
of our assessment be given full consideration in this review.

Finally, we would much appreciate clarification as to how consensus in
the decision making process will be defined.

 
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************