RE: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Bill for your response to Alan's question.  In my opinion as one member 
of the DT, I concur with your assessment.  And I also wonder if it might be 
good for us to add the gist of what you say in your first paragragh to our 
comments.  Maybe something like this:

"The Affirmation Reviews Discussion Draft lists the 
'capacity to make abstractions from personal opinions' as a desired skill for 
review team members and goes on to say 'the individual opinions of evaluators 
should not interfere with the rigorous analysis of findings'.  The GNSO Council 
therefore concluded that the reviewers are there to act as autonomous experts 
who'd neutrally assess information with an eye toward advancing the collective 
good, rather than promoting the private agendas of particular stakeholders." 

In my personal opinion, this would be a helpful clarification to our suggestion 
that there be communication between the reviewers and their respective SOs/ACs, 
making it clear that we do not intend such communication to serve as a means 
for SOs and ACs to advance their agendas but rather to be a means to provide 
relevant information as needed in the review process.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:17 AM
> To: Alan Greenberg
> Cc: GNSO Council List
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
> 
> 
> Hi Alan
> 
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Bill, there is a line in the draft which says "We agree 
> with the draft that Review team members are not to 
> "represent" particularistic interests, and that they should 
> be broadly neutral and focused on the collective good of the 
> ICANN community as a whole."
> > 
> > Can you point out where the document it says this?  I can 
> find a bunch of references saying that the do represent the 
> AC/SOs, but not the opposite.
> 
> You raise a valid concern, and perhaps the language could be 
> clearer.  There is of course representation to the extent 
> that AC/SOs nominate "their" people. The question is, what 
> happens from there?  The draft proposes that the call for 
> candidates include, as a desired skill, capacity to make 
> "abstractions from personal opinions."  This is poorly 
> worded; I presume it's supposed to mean judgments that are 
> not based on those opinions, rather than abstract inferential 
> reasoning that is based on them.  It goes on to say more 
> clearly that "the individual opinions of evaluators should 
> not interfere with the rigorous analysis of findings;" that 
> the Selectors should pick people based on their skills (by 
> inference, not their or their nominating group's opinions); 
> that there should not be a public comment on the identity and 
> personal characteristics of members; and that the teams, once 
> constituted, are to have autonomy in selecting operating 
> procedures, terms of reference, definition o!
>  f tools and targets, gathering data, and conducting neutral 
> evaluations rigorously based on indicators and evidence.  So 
> the drafting team read all this as implying that reviewers 
> are there to act as autonomous experts who'd neutrally assess 
> information with an eye toward advancing the collective good, 
> rather than promoting the private agendas of particular 
> stakeholders.  Of course, this is aspirational, and in 
> reality one's personal/group views may color how evidence is 
> assessed, at least to some extent, but then that'd be open to 
> challenge by colleagues if it crosses the line.
> 
> It was with all this in mind that we added the language about 
> RT members needing to periodically update their AC/SOs on 
> main trends, being able to solicit input from their AC/SOs, 
> and being prepared to pass along unsolicited input from their 
> AC/SOs, when really merited.  The hope was that this would 
> balance RT autonomy and obligation to assess neutrally with 
> an appropriate level of openness and communication to one's AC/SO.
> 
> If you don't think that's sufficient, and that RT members 
> should in fact be there wearing the hats of their nominating 
> entity and start sentences like "well, from the perspective 
> of xxx, we think that....," of something similar, feel free 
> to propose language to that effect and see if you get takers. 
>  It just wasn't how the drafting team read the doc or 
> envisioned the process, and there's at least some grounds for 
> believing that approach would result in a more politicized, 
> negotiation/bargaining style of interaction.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
>