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

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

Many thanks to Bill for the considerable polishing and editing work. 

Chuck, your insertions look good to me. 

Kind regards 


----------------
Caroline Greer
Director of Policy 
dotMobi 


----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
To: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
<gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun Jan 17 22:31:36 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft ARR Letter

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
        ***********************************************************