AoC Accountability and Transparency Review Team selections

[Fouad Bajwa]

What would be required from us that would like to participate? A EOI and a
CV?

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 3:28 PM, William Drake <
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:

> 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 selectionsHi,
>
> 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
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>


-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
Advisor & Researcher
ICT4D & Internet Governance
Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
My Blog: Internet's Governance
http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets:
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
MAG Interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100214/c2410d70/attachment.html>