<html>
<body>
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).<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 24/01/2016 10:46 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Counsel provided the following
feedback on Annex 9:<br><br>
<b><u>Annex 9 (AOC Reviews)</u></b>: <i>We recommend that
consideration be given to further clarifying the Review Team provision in
Paragraph 54 (1) to specify the type of “diversity” 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.</i> <br><br>
<font face="Calibri">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.<br>
</font><br>
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."<br><br>
Greg<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>