[CCWG-ACCT] Counsels' feedback on Annex 9 (AOC Reviews)
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sun Jan 24 23:42:35 UTC 2016
Greg, you use the expression "seating a full
review team" and say that "unused" seats could be
used for other AC/SOs (as does the current proposal, to some extent).
However, I hope that everyone understands these
terms. The "full review team" according to our
new definition is 21 people from AC/SOs plus the
Board and advisors/experts. To date, we have have
had or are in the process of doing 5AoC reviews.
They have had between 11 and 13 AC/SO members.
Some AC/SOs have occupied less than 1 seat per
review (and one has occupied only 1 seats overall
the reviews). "Seating the full review team"
would involve nearly doubling the size of each
review, and I have yet to hear of an explanation
that even tries to justify that.
For those who want to see the actual numbers
(based on a very quick review of the review
documents), a tally of the reviews is attached.
Alan
At 24/01/2016 10:46 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>Counsel provided the following feedback on Annex 9:
>
>Annex 9 (AOC Reviews): We recommend that
>consideration be given to further clarifying the
>Review Team provision in Paragraph 54 (1) to
>specify the type of âdiversityâ desired
>(geographic or otherwise) for Review Team
>members and (2) to state whether, in determining
>the composition of the members of the Review
>Teams they select, the group of chairs can
>solicit additional nominees or appoint less than
>21 members to avoid potential overrepresentation
>of particular ACs or SOs if some nominate less than 3 members.
>
>Diversity is desirable and should be encouraged,
>in various ways. However, on the se second
>point above, I think the suggestions go further
>and in different directions than I believe
>appropriate. Diversity is a goal, not a
>requirement. Soliciting members from
>underrepresented demographics is not troubling;
>indeed, participation should be encouraged
>across the board. However, the idea of not
>seating a full review team because of lack of
>enthusiasm from particular demographics is
>troubling, for a few reasons. First, the teams
>are purposely fairly small and smaller teams
>would make it harder to get the work
>done. Second, some topics may naturally inspire
>more interest from some demographics than
>others. Third, some topics may actually be
>appropriate for an imbalanced representation.
>
>I also think the application of "diversity" to
>the distribution of SOs and ACs ona review team
>is misplaced. Indeed it runs counter to the
>concept that unfilled seats of one SO/AC (to the
>extent there are even formal 'seats') can be
>reallocated to another SO/AC with more
>applicants for the review team. This should be
>clarified,as an acceptable and appropriate
>action, rather than made to seem undesirable in the name of "diversity."
>
>Greg
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160124/d7621dea/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MemberTally.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 55732 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160124/d7621dea/MemberTally-0001.pdf>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list