AoC Accountability and Transparency Review Team selections

[William Drake]

Hi Robin

On Feb 12, 2010, at 10:44 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> 
> On how to select the NCSG candidates (at least 1 primary and 2 alternates?)   Given the practical realities of holding a global online election in less than a week, a better option for selecting these candidates may be for the NCSG/NCUC Executive Committees and GNSO Councilors to appoint the candidates to the GNSO based upon who applies for the Review Team via NCSG.  

> Do we know by when NCSG candidates would need to throw their hat in the ring?

Again, applications are due 22 February at ICANN, per the call for apps, and people who want to be nominated by the GNSO need to address the additional info requests set out in the process Council will vote on the 18th.

If anyone waits to the end to apply, NCSG might not know who's in our pool of possibilities and how strong their app looks until the 23rd.  And by the 24th-25th, we will have to notify GNSO who we're nominating, so the Evaluation Team and the Council can have a day or two for their respective assessments (these really ought to be sequential, but won't be) before the Council votes on the 25th or 26th (we're Doodling...it'd be better if we could do it on the 27th but that's a Saturday and some people may be reluctant).

Bottom line, an election would probably have to be held on a 1-2 day turnaround.  Which seems a bit unrealistic, logistically.  There'd be time for members to look at the apps and send comments to the list for the ECs and Councilors to take on board, which would give us at least a little community buzz to go on, but one could imagine scenarios in which this could be a little unfair to the candidates.  We need to think about the options.

Needless to say, it's ironic that the schedule for an accountability exercise may well preclude an election...but these are the cards we've been dealt.  And this is with us having pestered staff for a week extension, their original plan had apps due the 17th, before the Council could even agree its selection procedures and additional qualifications.  So we just have to make the best of it with this first review team cycle. In April, the Council drafting team will try to assemble a standing mechanism for the handling of future RT nomination rounds, with the benefit of whatever we learn this time, and we shouldn't have to deal with another compressed time line like this.

Anyway, now we need to focus on getting good candidates who have the time, knowledge, and experience needed to really contribute in the RT.  Ideally, our nominees will be able to bring to the table the concerns and experiences of the NCUC/SG with respect to A&T, but also to be reasonably objective too (I'd suspect Janis and Peter will be less inclined to select someone they perceive as likely to only advance a narrow SG perspective).  

To reiterate, we need to select in about ten days:

*One person for the slot allocated to NCSG
*Probably up to two NCSG reps to compete in the open slot subject to a majority vote of both houses in Council
*In addition, there's a slot reserved for people who are not affiliated with an SG, including the NCAs.  NCSG Council reps will need to vote on filling this one too (again, a majority vote of both houses wins).  We could support a NCA candidate, if there is one, and/or we could encourage some independent academics or others with expertise on either ICANN or organizational A&T to stand.  Even if the latter folks didn't get elected, they might be considered by Janis and Peter for the Expert position.

Finally, despite all this elaborate apparatus, a reality to bear in mind is that probably only two RT positions will be given to the GNSO.  So NCSG support for a nominee is only the first step in the process, and probably at best one NCSG-backed person would get in this time.  However, those odds shouldn't discourage applications, since throwing a hat in the ring may give a leg up for the next or a future RT (e.g. if they don't pick an NCSG-backed person this time, they might feel more inclined to do so the next) or position one for consideration for the Expert post.  AoC reviews will be an ongoing activity in ICANN, so a long view is merited.

Best,

Bill


> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 11, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
> 
>> 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]
>>>> 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] 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
>> ***********************************************************
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 

***********************************************************
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/20100213/0978aa50/attachment.html>