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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

Regardless of what plan we approve for endorsement, I totally agree with
you that the Staff call for volunteers needs to change.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 12:19 PM
> To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Permanent Review Team Process
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>