RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Permanent Review Team Process
- To: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Permanent Review Team Process
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:49:05 -0400
I think you raise some critical issues Bill.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 2:09 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Permanent Review Team Process
> Hi Tim
> On Apr 16, 2010, at 12:09 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > This also allows more applicants to be considered by the Selectors.
> > Otherwise, I am concerned that the only applicants we will get are
> > those pre-ordained by the SGs - others won't see the point.
> This also
> > seems more fair to those that do bother to go through the
> application process.
> I understand your thinking now and appreciate the suggestion.
> How would you respond to the counter-arguments, e.g. that
> such an approach would
> 1. Vest all responsibility for deciding who represents the
> GNSO community in the selectors rather than the community
> itself, and thus leaves us all without a voice in the
> process. How would this square with the aspiration to follow
> bottom up democratic consensus-based procedures? Would we
> agree to follow this model for other kinds of decisions in
> ICANN, and if not, why would it then be right here?
> 2. Relatedly, dump all the work on the selectors, rather
> than aiding them in sorting through potentially largish
> pools. In order to know that they're picking people the
> community supports, wouldn't they have to do extra cycles of
> back channel consultation, which would make the process less
> transparent? Or would we just trust them to pick optimally
> on their own, even though they may not know the candidates,
> their particular expertise, the issues of particular concern
> to GNSO that its reps would have to carry into the process, etc?
> 3. Politicizes the whole process by promoting asymmetries in
> potential influence and representation. Let's say that a
> particularly well resourced SG decides great, we'll put
> forward ten names in order to up our chances. Other SGs
> might feel like this is rather unfair if they cannot muster a
> similar number of candidates. To avoid that, they'd have to
> put in a bunch of effort beating the bushes and badgering
> their people that please, we need more bodies to offset SG
> x's undue advantage. Could be a bit of a drain and
> distraction on volunteers who are already often hard pressed
> to keep up with all the work going on.
> To me, giving each SG one guaranteed nominee creates a level
> playing field among SGs and eliminates an additional level of
> unnecessary political drama within ICANN, ensures broad based
> representation in the nominee pool consistent with the AoC,
> and puts the responsibility for deciding who should represent
> the community in the community's hands, rather than in the
> hands of just two people who may not be attuned to our
> internal conditions. And the fifth slot allows people who
> aren't connected to or wouldn't be selected by the SGs to
> have a fair shot.
> But that's just me. If everyone else feels differently and
> we're able to get community consensus on an alternative
> model, then let's do that instead.