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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

On Jan 18, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> 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.

Sorry, the sentence was not precisely targeted.  How about,

"Obviously, any such communications would need to respect reasonable 
restrictions like the REVIEW TEAM'S ADHERENCE TO THE Chatham House rule"?

Best

Bill

> 
> 
> 
> -------- 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
> ***********************************************************