[independent review] [WP2] Independent Review

Fri Apr 17 14:19:45 UTC 2015

I think there's a danger in trying to be too explicit about the 
required skill set for IRP panelists.

First, I agree with Paul's original comment that "an ICANN reviewer 
has to be able to understand and address five arenas/communities: 
technical, civil society, business, diplomatic and regulatory."  But 
I take that to refer to the competence of the Panel as a whole, not 
necessarily to the competence of any single panelist.  I think the 
Panel - which in my opinion should, for reasons I put forward in an 
earlier email, decide all cases as a whole - will need to have this 
kind of very broad skill set if it is to do its job well; but the 
best way to achieve that isn't necessarily to say that every panelist 
has to have the whole bundle of skills and experience (which would 
eliminate a lot of people who I suspect would be very effective 
members of the panel).

Second, it seems to me to be a little premature to be too specific 
about the requirements for a "good" panelist.  We don't really know 
yet how this institution is actually going to function - the kinds of 
claims that it is going to be hearing or the role that it will end up 
playing in the DNS ecosystem. Getting too specific about 
qualifications in advance can interfere with the institution's 
ability to evolve over time.

Third, because it can be difficult to determine objectively whether 
any one individual appointee has any particular competence -  whether 
someone really understands the technologies involved, or the 
principles of international law, or institutional mechanics, or 
whatever qualifications might be imposed - these kinds of 
specifications are very difficult to enforce down the road, and they 
become suggestions for whomever is making the appointment decision 
rather than meaningful constraints.  If the Board is to select Panel 
members (subject to some process for community approval), which I 
think is the current proposal, I think that a better way to get 
people with the "right" skill sets onto the Panel is to focus on 
making sure that the approval process has real "teeth" and will 
require the Board to find people who are well qualified for the job.

David

At 04:22 PM 4/16/2015, James Gannon wrote:

>Speaking as one of the 'techies' around here I would think that to 
>maximize the value and required experience of the panels that while 
>a solid understanding of the technologies involved should be a 
>requirement, there should be facility made to allow the panel to 
>seek expert independent technical opinions where necessary rather 
>than having technical expertise sit on the panel. There may be 
>situations where panelists happen to be technical experts but I 
>don't think that we need to have 'has a published RFC' as a 
>requirement (To analogize)
>
>From: wp2-independentreview-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:wp2-independentreview-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
>Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 9:16 PM
>To: Paul Twomey; Perez Galindo, Rafael; Paul Rosenzweig
>Cc: wp2 at icann.org; wp2-independentreview at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [independent review] [WP2] Independent Review
>
>I am adding a list of questions to the template we reviewed in 
>Istanbul and will include this as something on which we are seeking 
>community input.  Increasing the diversity of the requisite skill 
>set will increase the size of the standing panel.  Clearly, the 
>panelists must have a good technical baseline understanding of the 
>DNS, and the interest/aptitude/comfort to deal with technical 
>issues,  and technical and other expertise needs to be available to 
>the panel in appropriate cases, e.g., in cases where the question 
>turns on whether an action or inaction falls within ICANN's mission 
>statement.  But to the extent we are focused on the Commitments and 
>Core Values, which are largely due process oriented, how much 
>technical expertise is required?
>
>FWIW, some of my best friends are hard core techies -;
>
>J. Beckwith Burr
>Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / 
><mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>
>From: Paul Twomey 
><<mailto:Paul.Twomey at argopacific.com>Paul.Twomey at argopacific.com>
>Date: Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 5:14 PM
>To: "Perez Galindo, Rafael" 
><<mailto:RPEREZGA at minetur.es>RPEREZGA at minetur.es>, Becky Burr 
><<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Paul 
>Rosenzweig 
><<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>Cc: "<mailto:wp2 at icann.org>wp2 at icann.org" 
><<mailto:wp2 at icann.org>wp2 at icann.org>, 
>"<mailto:wp2-independentreview at icann.org>wp2-independentreview at icann.org" 
><<mailto:wp2-independentreview at icann.org>wp2-independentreview at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [WP2] [independent review] Independent Review
>
>Becky (and team)
>
>I have been following this area and your excellent considerations 
>for some time.   (And have been commenting outside on the need to a 
>standing, high level Independent Review mechanism - 
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ourinternet.org_-23publications_legal-2Dmechanisms-2Dfor-2Dgoverning-2Dthe-2Dtransition-2Dof-2Dkey-2Ddomain-2Dname-2Dfunctions-2Dto-2Dthe-2Dglobal-2Dmulti-2Dstakeholder-2Dcommunity&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=fldCNBCE0oVyuPByj_QZYfW84LsIgP-6kOWrhagdE10&s=qTNI-gxl1LZrdV1zJ55ugHoeEoXX0K6QwfD7yh4kFR8&e=>https://ourinternet.org/#publications/legal-mechanisms-for-governing-the-transition-of-key-domain-name-functions-to-the-global-multi-stakeholder-community 
>)
>
>One question you pose on the chart is the required skill set.   I 
>think that this should be more than just senior legal.   Having 
>watched the community for 18 years, it strikes me that an ICANN 
>reviewer has to be able to understand and address five 
>arenas/communities: technical, civil society, business, diplomatic 
>and regulatory.   While lawyers and public policy experts can 
>achieve this, and be recognized by others as having key skills, I 
>have found that there is great benefit with mixing senior technical 
>people who not only bring a technical educational value, but also, 
>frankly, are more likely to gain the esteem of the hard-core 
>technical community (who for some reason do not have high regard for 
>lawyers, etc.... )   It has certainly been of benefit at the Board.
>
>Best
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>Dr Paul Twomey
>
>
>Managing Director
>
>
>Argo P at cific
>
>
>
>
>
>US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
>
>
>Aust M: +61 416 238 501
>
>
>
>
>
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.argopacific.com&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=fldCNBCE0oVyuPByj_QZYfW84LsIgP-6kOWrhagdE10&s=AJE2JpcoTL6l9X3p0opzbrNt14gMKsBGMYZvHsX20Gc&e=>www.argopacific.com 
>
>*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications 
etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2-independentreview/attachments/20150417/602ae95e/attachment.html>