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

Thu Feb 1 03:03:29 UTC 2018

+1  Dev

Niran Beharry

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The motion to submit a comment on "Operating Standards for ICANN
> Specific Reviews" to have "independent" Review Team members not
> endorsed by any SO/AC is problematic for several reasons :
>
> - 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 at unam.mx> 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 MÉXICO 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 at gmail.com]
> > 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 at unam.mx> 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 MÉXICO 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org]
> en
> >> nombre de Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels at gmail.com]
> >> 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 at msn.com> 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 – LACRALO Secretariat
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> >>> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>
>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > lac-discuss-en mailing list
> > lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20180131/a8f61354/attachment-0001.html>