RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Permanent Review Team Process

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Bill,

There is no way to escape the politics. The process we used last time,
and the similar one you describe, are policital. In fact, the RrSG had
four names on its short list and only one was a registrar. When we
learned that the other SGs selected candidates from their SG, the RrSG
decided to select the one registrar candidate on the short list. Prior
to that the favorite appeared to be a candidate from the CSG, believe it
or not. That's not political? And that's exactly what will happen under
the process you describe. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but let's
not pretend we can escape the political aspect of this.

If we are going to do anything akin to what we did last time then we
need to get Staff and Board to modify their open call for volunteers.
They should pull it back and instead refer interested applicants to an
appropriate page that describes the application and selection process
for each SO/AC. The Selectors then become rubber stamps, so they really
would not be needed either.

Other responses inline below.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Permanent Review Team Process
From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, April 16, 2010 1:08 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx


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?

Tim: What I proposed does not leave us without a voice. It specifically
allows for each SG to endorse one, or maybe more, applicants. It does
not vest all responsibility to the Selectors - the GNSO vets for
appropriate qualifications and endorses some. It fits better with an
open call. If it is basically a SG election process then let's be clear
about that.

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?

Tim: It depends on the what the overall process is supposed to be. What
is the point of an open call and the Selectors then? What I proposed
puts most of the work on the GNSO - vetting applicants for the
qualifications, obtaining endorsements from SGs. If the Selectors have
no decision to make, then what is their purpose? If we let SGs endorse
multiple candidates it would assist the Selectors and allow them to come
closer to their geographic and gender diversity goals, which I believe
should be their concern not ours.

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.

Tim: Again, its political no matter how you go about it. I don't think
the attempt at gaming described above will happen, or have any impact if
it does. I am hard pressed to see the Selectors pick multiple applicants
from a single SG. I think it would actually go the other way, the SGs
would endorse a small set of applicants to be sure that one they have
confidence in gets on the review team.

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.

Tim: For me, under the current model of open call and use of Selectors,
what I proposed creates a level playing field for the applicants yet
allows the SGs to have a significant influence on the outcome with
signficantly less politics involved. 

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.

Cheers,

Bill