AoC Accountability and Transparency Review Team selections

[Mary Wong]

Thanks for this, Bill - it's not your fault the process and details are
so arcane and torturous!
 
I see no reason why the diversity requirements/language should be
struck. It's important - especially as ICANN goes into the first AoC
review phase - to demonstrate both the need for as well as the existence
(as far as possible) of diverse representation in the ICANN community.
 
Equally I agree that Councillors should not be precluded in principle
from being eligible for a Review Team, for the reasons you stated.
 
I too would very much welcome members' opinions on the questions/issues
raised by Bill before we go into the Council meeting on the 18th.
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> 


From: William Drake <william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH>
To:<NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
Date: 2/11/2010 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: AoC Accountability and Transparency Review Team
selections
Hi,

Thanks Avri for passing along Chuck's message to SG chairs to get this
started.  As chair of the council drafting team that assembled the
proposed process I guess it falls to me to walk through the details. 
Looong and somewhat complicated message follows, so get comfortable...

As members will recall, in December ICANN released an Affirmation
Reviews Requirements and Implementation processes Draft Proposal
http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/affirmation-reviews-draft-proposal-26dec09-en.pdf
 that envisioned, inter alia, very small review teams carrying out the
Affirmation of Commitments requirements.  NCUC/SG members expressed
concern about the staff proposal to limit GNSO participation to one or
less representative per team, a concern that was shared by other SGs and
thus incorporated into the council response filed in the public comment
period
http://forum.icann.org/lists/affrev-draft-processes/msg00008.html, which
we discussed a few weeks back on this list.  We do not know the answer
yet as to how many GNSO reps will be on the first review team, for
Accountability and Transparency.  However, there's reason to believe
that the number will be raised to at least two, and the council has
proceeded on that assumption.  

ICANN announced its call for applicants
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-03feb10-en.htm before
the GNSO or other SO/ACs had had a chance to determine how many names
they would put forward, whether they wanted to set any additional
qualification requirements for candidates, or how to structure their
nomination processes.  In addition, ICANN proposed a time line for
submissions that was very short and utterly unworkable.  The council
drafting team therefore asked for an extension and managed to get a few
more days, so now we have a timeline that is merely potentially
unworkable.  Anyway, this is why, when someone declared interest on the
list the other day in being nominated, I suggested holding off until the
process of being nominated by GNSO was clearer and we knew when
applications would be due.  The latter point is now settled; the
application deadline is now 22 February.   The former is now clearer,
but there could be process revisions.

In order to give the Selectors sufficient options and to offer
interested parties sufficient opportunities to participate, the drafting
team decided to propose that the GNSO nominate up to six people, from
which the Selectors (the GAC chair and chair of the Board) will pick,
hopefully at least two.  It was initially suggested in the drafting team
that these all be selected by a majority vote of both houses'
councilors, but as this could have resulted in a given SG (including us)
not getting any, I counter-proposed allocating one fixed slot to each
SG, reserving one slot for NCAs and others who don't self-identify with
a given SG, and leaving one slot open to contention by anyone, including
SG candidates.  The latter two would be selected by a majority vote of
both houses' councilors.  This is the formula that was included in the
drafting team's process proposal submitted yesterday to the council for
a vote in its 18 February meeting.  

In short then, the proposed nomination process (with arrows for action
items) is as follows:

1.  Each SG will select one nominee for a fixed allocation slot.

2. Up to two additional nominees will be selected by a simple majority
vote of each house. Again, one slot will be open to applicants of any
kind, while the other slot will be reserved for candidates who do not
self-identify with any particular stakeholder group, including NomCom
appointees. (In the event that more than two candidates receive at least
a simple majority from each house, ties will be broken as follows, in
the order presented: geographical and/or gender diversity; and the total
votes received.)

=> Hence, NCSG will need to select one person who'd definitely be
included in the pool of nominees submitted to the Selectors.  And we can
also submit candidates for Council consideration in a competitive vote
for the open to anyone slot.  Council needs to decide how many
candidates a SG can submit for that; some in the drafting team were
thinking up to two, and that's what Chuck put in brackets in the message
to SG chairs.  If that's what happens in the 18 February meeting, then
we will want to identify up to three names, a primary for the fixed slot
and two competitors for the open slot. If instead the council decides on
a larger number, or no limitations, then NCSG could pick more for the
latter.

3.  Some in the drafting team were concerned that if the Council did
opt for a larger number, or no limitations, the council could be swamped
with applications its member wouldn't have time to read carefully before
the two houses vote.  They therefore suggested that there be an
Evaluation Team comprising one Councilor from each stakeholder group
plus one NomCom appointee to assess the applications for the two voted
slots and report to the Council.  (the original idea was that the ET
would actually rank applicants, but we decided not to specify ex ante
how they'd proceed...will depend on the pool etc)  Personally, I'm not
clear that this additional machinery is needed since Council will
probably limit the number for the open slot to something manageable, and
even if it doesn't, SGs will probably vote their preferences
irrespective of any ET advice.  Also quite unclear is whether there will
actually be time for this exercise.  But as part of the compromising
process this was left in for now.  Hence, under the current plan,
somehow/sometime prior to the vote the ET will assess the applications
and somehow identify what it thinks are most plausible ones, which the
Council can take under advisement if it likes.

=> Assuming we stick with this plan, NCSG therefore will need to select
one person to represent it on the Evaluation Team.

A major bone of contention in the drafting team concerned diversity
requirements.  The language I drafted is pretty tame but apparently not
tame enough, as it was supported by half the team and opposed by the
other half.  We agreed to leave the language in the plan that Council
will vote on, but it is expected that CSG and perhaps the other industry
SGs will propose an amendment to strike it from the plan.  The language
is as follows:

3. Unless the applicant pool does not allow, no more than two nominees
should come
from the same geographical region.
4. Unless the applicant pool does not allow, nominees must not all be
of the same
gender, and the distribution between genders should be no greater than
two-thirds to
one-third.
5. If the diversity goals in points 3 and 4 above are not achieved in
the initial round of
selections, the Evaluation Team will consult with the stakeholder
groups and
NomCom appointees to review the candidate pool, and then present to the
Council an
alternative mix that would meet the goals. The Council would vote on
the new list,
with a simple majority of both houses required for acceptance. If the
vote fails, the
cycle will repeat until there is a successful outcome.

=> It would be helpful if NCSG members could weigh in and provide our
Councilors with input on how to approach this in the meeting on the
18th.  The options are a) propose an amendment with stronger diversity
language, which definitely will not pass, or weaker language (but why
would we); b) support or oppose any amendment to strike this language
from the plan; and c) if the language is struck, support or oppose the
motion adopting the plan.   I made clear in the drafting team that I
will oppose an amendment to strike and will not vote for the final plan
if it is (would be interesting to vote against a motion I made, but
whatever), and speculated that some if not all other NCSG Councilors
might do the same, in which case GNSO would be adopting its AoC process
on a divided vote, which would be notably bad optics etc.  But I don't
know for sure how everyone feels about this.

=> NCSG members should be aware that there will probably be another
amendment proposed by CSG and perhaps other industry SGs.  This would be
to make Councilors ineligible for nomination to review teams.  Here too
the drafting team was split 50/50 along the same lines as above.  While
one could argue that a Councilor might be hard pressed to handle both
positions, thus of us who oppose restrictions see them as contrary to
the AOC language, anti-democratic (people should be free to stand, and
free to vote for whomever they like), a bit condescending (candidates
presumably can assess their own ability to do the work or not), and
likely to preclude valuable knowledge from being brought into the RTs. 
If Councilors don't think someone can handle the work, despite what they
say, they should simply vote against the person, IMHO.  Anyway, we might
want to talk about this and how to vote on such an amendment.

The above all pertains to the nomination process.  Moving on, the
Council also wanted to add additional, GNSO-specific requirements on
applicant qualifications to the generic ones listed by ICANN.  These too
are covered in the process plan.  Some of them are kind of copy
editorial (things ICANN might have specified but didn't), some are
legalize of interest to corporate lawyers/reps, and some are of general
import to applicants like NCSGers.  I'll just mention the latter:

j. Applicants interested in being considered for endorsement by the
GNSO must also
include in their submission to ICANN the following information:

[snip]

• An attestation that the applicant is able and willing to commit at
least ten
hours per week during the review period, in addition to participating
in the
planned face to face and/or teleconference review team meetings;
• A two to three paragraph statement about the applicant’s knowledge of
the
GNSO community and its structure and operations, and any details of
his/her
participation therein; or
• In the event that an applicant has not been involved in the GNSO
community,
a two to three paragraph description of his/her qualifications that
would be of
relevance to the accountability and transparency review team.

=>Anyone from NCSG thinking of applying should therefore begin thinking
about how they'd answer these questions, maybe draft some text.  Again
though, this is not final until the Council votes the 18th, and maybe
the wording will change a little.  So I'd suggest holding off on
finalizing and submitting an application until the 19th earliest,
remembering again that the deadline for submission is just a few days
later, the 22nd.  Tight window.  Alas, just one of them.


Here's an overview of the whole time line, with action items:

13-22 February  
*NCSG Councilors have to decide how to vote on the possible amendments
to the plan, and on the plan as a whole, in Council 18 February.   We
might also want to revisit the utility of the Evaluation Team, in the
event that Council caps SG apps for the open slot at two.
*Potential candidates should work their applications and preferably
announce their intention to stand.
*NCSG should define the process by which it will make its selections;
the earlier the better.  Avri will be getting back to everyone to start
that conversation.

22 February 
Applications due at ICANN

23-24 February (depending on whether the special Council meeting to
vote is scheduled for 25 or 26 February)
*Once all the applications have beens sent to ICANN and then forwarded
from there to the GNSO Secretariat and then on to the NCSG, we will need
to make our selections, basically in one to two days.  This timeline may
make it difficult to conduct an all-member election; we'd need to
receive and distribute all applications, everyone would have to read and
judge them, then the election machinery would have to be implemented,
all at lightening speed.  Another option might be for people to express
views on the list and then the final decision on how to vote in Council
is made by the policy comm & Councilors taking those views into account.
 An election is obviously preferable in principle, whether it's doable
in practice is something we need to think through.

24 or 25 February (depending per above)
*NCSG would then:
a.       Endorse one [primary] candidate [and up to two alternates]
from the applications received and notify the GNSO Secretariat of the
same.  [At least one alternate must be of different gender and from a
different geographic region from the primary candidate.]
b.      Provide direction for their Councilors regarding what
candidates they should endorse for the two open endorsements described
in item 2 above.

24 or 25 February 
*Having received nominations from the SGs, the Evaluation Team would
somehow do a lightening assessment of their candidates plus those for
the unaffiliated slot and make a rec to Council 

25 or 26 February Council has a special meeting to vote on the two open
slots
*If the result of this first round exercise is inadequate gender and
geographic diversity, the Evaluation Team would consult with SGs and
others involved and try to work out a compromise that meets the
requirements listed above

1 March
The Council notifies the Selectors of its nominations

Week of Nairobi meeting or just after
*Selectors announce the RT's composition

And then the fun begins for RT members (see the timeline in the above
mentioned ARR implementation plan draft)

This is all clear, right?  :-)  Obviously, it's a bit baroque, the time
line is insanely compressed, and some bits (IMO the ET assessment, for
which there's just no time) are problematic.  But that's where things
stand now.

If anyone has any questions I can try to clarify, probably I've botched
the explanation of something....


Oh, and the relevant documents are:

Motion on the Proposed Process for GNSO Endorsements
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_february_2010_motions

AoC DT Action Plan for Development of GNSO Endorsement of RT
Volunteers
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-endorsement-volunteers-action-plan-10feb10-en.pdf

Proposed Process for GNSO Endorsement of Nominees to the Affirmation of
Commitments Accountability and Transparency Review Team
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-endorsement-nominees-process-proposal-10feb10-en.pdf


Best,

Bill

On Feb 11, 2010, at 7:03 AM, Avri Doria wrote:




One of the Issues for the meeting on 17 Feb

a.


Begin forwarded message:



From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
Date: 11 February 2010 01:01:57 GMT+01:00
To: "David W. Maher" <dmaher at pir.org>, "Mason Cole"
<masonc at snapnames.com>, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org>, "J. Scott Evans"
<jscottevans at yahoo.com>, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade at hotmail.com>,
<secretariat at ispcp.info>, <KnobenW at telekom.de>, "Jaime B Wagner"
<j at bwagner.com.br>
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>, <gnso-arr-dt at icann.org>

Message to SG Chairs and Constituency Leaders

 A GNSO Council motion has been made and seconded for action on 18
February to approve a plan whereby the GNSO may endorse up to six
volunteers for the 2010 Affirmation of Commitments Accountability and
Transparency Review Team as follows:
1.      Each stakeholder group will select one nominee.  
2.      Up to two additional nominees will be selected by a simple
majority vote of each house.  One of these slots will be reserved for
candidates who do not self-identify with any particular stakeholder
group, including NomCom appointees.

 If this plan is approved, all applications from volunteers requesting
GNSO endorsement would be forwarded to the SGs as soon as possible after
the application period closes on 22 February, and not later than 24 or
25 February (depending on whether a special Council meeting is scheduled
for 25 or 26 February), the SGs would be requested to:
a.       Endorse one [primary] candidate [and up to two alternates]
from the applications received and notify the GNSO Secretariat of the
same.  [At least one alternate must be of different gender and from a
different geographic region from the primary candidate.][1] (
outbind://79/#_ftn1 )
b.      Provide direction for their Councilors regarding what
candidates they should endorse for the two open endorsements described
in item 2 above.

 With the understanding that the proposed plan could be amended on 18
February, anything you can do to prepare for the above tasks and
facilitate success of the endorsement process will be greatly
appreciated.  As you can tell, the SGs and the Council will have
extremely short turn-around times for the above tasks.

 If you have any questions, please let me know.

 Chuck Gomes

[1] ( outbind://79/#_ftnref1 )Bracketed text was added by the Council
Chair and not approved by the GNSO DT that developed the proposed
endorsement process.  The GNSO community and the GNSO Council will have
just 2 to 3 days to review applications from volunteers requesting GNSO
endorsement, so if the SGs can provide the two alternates as described
in addition to a primary candidate, it could greatly facilitate Council
final action on the endorsements on either 25 or 26 February.
 
P.S. - In addressing this message, I realized that I was not sure who
the NCSG and CSG chairs are so I included constituency leaders as best
as I could determine so as to get this message out as soon as possible. 
If I missed anyone, please forward this message right away.




***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100211/17d51408/attachment.html>