RE: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR

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

It would be helpful to have a motion today.  It can be simple.  That way
Councilors can easily forward the motion to their respective groups for
feedback and direction.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:20 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Alan Greenberg; GNSO Council List
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
> 
> 
> Hi Chuck
> 
> On Jan 20, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> Personally, I kind of feel like we already make these points, 
> maybe not as much in bold and underlined but they're there.  
> We can leave the text the dt approved stable and try to get 
> consensus, or open it up and see what happens...whatever 
> people want.  
> 
> Also would be good to know if Alan is satisfied enough or 
> wants to suggest a different approach.
> 
> And we need a motion no?
> 
> Bill
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >> -----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
> >> 
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> ***********************************************************
> 
> 
> 
>