Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"

- Who would assess and decide to select such members if not the
AC/SOs? If ICANN, it would likely (as Carlton suggests) concentrate
power to ICANN to review ICANN.
- "Independent" members applying will likely be from the ICANN
stakeholder community (from a AC or SO). For them to be somehow not
accountable, or coordinating with their AC/SO throughout the Review is
unusual - independent members could also seek their personal
interest/agendas and disrupt the review team's work.
- What happens when independent members resign? Who would replace them?

Furthermore the proposal is quite detailed:
- having a scope drafting team setting the scope before the review
starts with appropriate review, public comment and approval.
- call for volunteers to be on the review team, noting criteria needed.
- after the call, each SO/AC, following its own internal processes,
nominates up to seven candidates for each review team selecting from
the pool of applicants that responded to the open call for volunteers.
- ICANN organization Non-Binding Diversity and Skill Analysis of the
presumed review team done and shared with the SO/ACs chairs - the
purpose of this additional step is to alert the Chairs of any
shortcomings in diversity and skillset across the full anticipated
composition, and to allow them to confer with their respective SO/ACs
in order to make changes to nominations or otherwise receive modified
direction on completing the selection process.
- how the review team does it work, how the review team can adjust the
scope if it deems necessary , solicit independent experts, etc.
- dealing with resignation of review team members
- removal of review team members
- having observers on review teams

etc, which appears sufficient to fulfill the mission of the reviews.

I therefore cannot support Alejandro's motion as I don't see how such
a change will help achieve the goals of the ICANN reviews.

I do thank Alejandro for the suggestion, it forced me (and hopefully
others in LACRALO) to scrutinize and reflect on the proposed policy
more intently.


Kind Regards,

Dev Anand Teelucksingh




On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:09 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <
apisan@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Carlton,

> thanks for the careful read and underlining the relevant documentation.

> The pendulum swing in which the CCWG's for the IANA transition was careful
> to avoid a concentration of power in the ICANN professional organization
has
> led to a paradoxal effect in which the SO/AC leadership has incentives to
> "circle the wagons" and to perform a bit too much of internal
> "horse-trading." We lived through a similar analysis in the 2003 Evolution
> and Reform Process, when we created the Nominating Committee and had to
take
> care that some politics of the GNSO (previously DNSO) and other ICANN
> components was not transferred to the NomCom.

> The motion I put forward would not undo the SO/AC part but would add the
> opportunity for a correction to the undesirable, pardoxal effect I have
> described.

> This is also important because the rules for the accountability,
> transparency, and liability for the circle of SO/AC leadership have not
yet
> been fully developed to the level of the Board's requirements and risks.
> This adds to the incentives to avoid a review that could scrutinize the
> organization in ways that this circle would not desire, yet would be
> important for the health of the organization as a whole and in consequence
> would also stave off the criticism that it is too self-contained. These
are
> already around since before the IANA transition and may get worse (whether
> founded or unfounded, it is always better to have objective grounds to
> dismiss them.)

> Alejandro Pisanty



> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>       Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química 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: Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx]
> Enviado el: martes, 30 de enero de 2018 19:32
> Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
> CC: Maritza Y. Aguero Minano; LACRALO discussion list

> Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty -
> "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"

> Thanks for the clarification Alejandro.  Your resolution seems to suggest
> disqualifying SO/ACs from selecting RT members. If this is removed from
> SO/ACs, it goes to ICANN the organisation, no?  So I extracted the
> obligations of ICANN org in what is proposed:

> ü  Timely publication of call for volunteers;

> ü  Determining the need to extend the call, in case of insufficiently
> diverse or skilled pool of applicants;

> ü  Assure that each applicant indicates which SO/AC from which they seek
> nomination and encourage applicants to familiarize themselves with the
work
> and leadership of the SO/AC from which they seek nomination

> ü  Provide a non-binding assessment of the skillset of each of the
> applicants relative to the skills and experiences identified in the call
for
> volunteers;

> ü  Provide each SO/AC with a list of those applicants who have sought
their
> respective nomination, including all application materials, and the
> non-binding skillset assessment;

> ü  Coordinate the meeting of SO/AC Chairs for the final selection of the
> review team.

> The call for volunteers must:

> ü  Include a mandatory field for candidate to indicate which of the seven
> SO/ACs from which they seek nomination.

> ü  Include a Statement of Interest (SOI) to be filled in by every
candidate.

> ü  Solicit information from applicants regarding their skillset and
> experience, relevant to the review.

> Set an expectation that a review team member may be asked to execute a
> nondisclosure agreement.

> I highlighted the duties of ICANN org that is being proposed because even
as
> I am for diversity and how that is achieved, I'm concerned about a
> concentration of power.  Would your proposal not concentrate power
> unconditionally in ICANN org?

> Best,
> -Carlton


> =============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> ============================

> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
> <apisan@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>> 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 Química 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




> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en