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

Wed Jan 31 03:09:54 UTC 2018

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:

•  Timely publication of call for volunteers;

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

•  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

•  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;

•  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;

•  Coordinate the meeting of SO/AC Chairs for the final selection of the review team.
The call for volunteers must:

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

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

•  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<mailto: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<tel:+52%201%2055%204144%204475> FROM ABROAD

+525541444475<tel:+52%2055%204144%204475> DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475<tel:+52%2055%204144%204475>
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<mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>] en nombre de Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels at gmail.com<mailto: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<tel:(876)%20818-1799>
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Maritza Y. Aguero Minano <myaguero at msn.com<mailto: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<mailto: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/20180131/517e8477/attachment-0001.html>