[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.


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 “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.
>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."
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- 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