Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"
Hi Alejandro, Just for clarity, what aspects of the current system characterise
it as 'too closed?
Sent from Samsung Focus
-------- Original message --------
From: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" <apisan@xxxxxxx>
Date: 1/29/18 9:19 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>, "Maritza Y. Aguero Minano"
<myaguero@xxxxxxx>
Cc: LACRALO discussion list <lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty -
"Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"
Hi,
the motion addresses what I perceive as a shortcoming of the Operating
Standards. Community selection, as implemented, is creating a process that is
too closed and can preclude an open enough composition of review teams. This
can be at the root of the ongoing difficulties the SSR2 review has encountered
and thus it can be that the problem presented is not hypothetical but something
that has already had consequences for ICANN.
I do intend to present a comment in the link indicated, individually, but find
the matter of enough importance for LACRALO to raise it collectively.
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro
Pisanty Facultad de QuÃmica UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÃ?XICO SMS +525541444475 Blog:
http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter:
http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Desde: lac-discuss-en [lac-discuss-en-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] en
nombre de Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx] Enviado el: lunes, 29 de
enero de 2018 19:43 Hasta: Maritza Y. Aguero Minano CC: LACRALO discussion
list Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty -
"Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"
I think inclusiveness is always laudable and should be a consistently-applied
principle in promoting multi-stakeholder solutions, especially in the
governance matters related to the domain name system.
Team member selection is the specific issue referenced by Alejandro's motion.
And the consultations now underway for "Operating Standards for
ICANN-specific Reviews" does have something to say about that. It
suggests 'community selection' as the preferred model. So maybe what we need
is a re-definition of 'community' within the ICANN context.
A couple of questions. Would that presentation of the proposed Operating
Standards for Review Teams address the issue raised by Alejandro?
And if we think it is inadequate to task, would it not be more helpful if
responses here give global visibility to the matter? Have a look:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
===========================On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Maritza Y. Aguero
Minano <myaguero@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear all,
As reported in the monthly LACRALO January call, Alejandro Pisanty has
presented the following petition:
"ICANN has initiated a public comment on the Guidelines for Reviews on
its activities: "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews":
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en
MOTION: LACRALO must request the Board and the SO/AC leadership to review the
procedures to integrate the "Review Teams". The result of said review
should be the inclusion of RT members as a matter of law without requiring the
approval of the SO/AC leadership as a whole.
RATIONALE: the current system forms a closed system in which it is not
possible to include independent opinieons. The process describes how to hire
"independent experts" but this refers exclusively to consultants who
will be selected in a similar way. The result of this closed cycle were
immediate: the "SSRT2" revision or the second DNS security, stability
and resiliency review has been put on hold for not achieving progress, which in
my opinion is at least partly due to the closed constitution of the working
team.
STATEMENT OF INTEREST: I have a detailed knowledge of the process as I was
Chair of the Initial SSRT (2010) and had submitted a request to participate in
the second team as well, and I also have had discussions with the Board, SSAC
and ALAC Chairs, as with other members who are part of those bodies.
I would be grateful to the Secretariat for attaching a copy of this motion to
the documents that will be reviewed this afternoon, as the matter structurally
affects the decisions made by the CCWG which led the IANA transition".
In this matter, we would like to start a consensus consultation to approve
the motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty.
This request for consensus will be made available to the Community for a
period of three (03) days counted from Monday, January 29th, 2018 and will end
on Thursday, February 1st, 2018, due to the time since the request was made and
the importance of the subject.
In the following link you will find the Motion presented by Alejandro
Pisanty: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79432176
This call for consensus is based on paragraph 12.8 of the LACRALO RoP, which
will be considered successful in the absence of significant opposition to it.
Regards,
Humberto Carrasco -LACRALO Chair
Maritza Agüero â?? LACRALO Secretariat
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en