RE: [council] FW: AoC A&T Review Teams

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

The response from Janis and Peter is logical.

 

 

I would like to share with the Council edited excerpts of my post in regards
this point on the ARR DT.  Hope they help:

 

The Affirmation of Commitments states that:

 

In regards conflicts – the Chair of the GAC is reviewing the GAC and the
Chair of the Board is reviewing the Board in as much as:

 

“ (a) continually assessing and improving ICANN Board of Directors (Board)
governance which shall include an ongoing evaluation of Board performance,
the Board selection process, the extent to which Board composition meets
ICANN's present and future needs, and the consideration of an appeal
mechanism for Board decisions; (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of
the GAC and its interaction with the Board”

 

- so inherently there is intended to be a conflict of interest on the review
team as envisaged by the AoC.

 

It is also interesting to note that the review will be performed by a group
that ‘will include’ and so not be limited to the Chair of the GAC, Chair of
the Board, AC/SO reps and independent experts.  So it could also include
others.

 

 

Moreover, in regards representative status of the GNSO ‘representative’:

 

“The review will be performed by volunteer community members and the review
team will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include
the following  (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the
Chair of the Board of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information of the DOC, representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory
Committees and Supporting Organizations and independent experts.” 

 

As such:

the Review seems in part like a Self-Review - and not an independent review

The ‘representative of the GNSO is exactly that ‘representing’ the GNSO – so
it does not seem to be an independent position.  The volunteer should be
willing to represent the GNSO (presumably GNSO interest)

 

 

Keeping in mind the intensive and sensitive nature of the Review it would be
strategic and important in the interest of the Council and its SGs to have
‘representatives’ on the Review Team who are deeply familiar with the work
and functioning of the GNSO especially in the preceding three years (AoC
states: “ICANN will organize a review of its execution of the above
commitments no less frequently than every three years” ).  They may even
have to defend the work of the GNSO.  As such, Councillors and AC/SO leaders
as well as ex-Councillors would seem to be good candidates.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Zahid Jamil

Barrister-at-law

Jamil & Jamil

Barristers-at-law

219-221 Central Hotel Annexe

Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan

Cell: +923008238230

Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025

Fax: +92 21 5655026

 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com

 

Notice / Disclaimer

This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law,
and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client
privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing
it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or
incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written
permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 19 February 2010 04:22
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] FW: AoC A&T Review Teams

 

Here's is Peter's reponse to Kristina's question.

 

Chuck

 

  _____  

From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:peter.dengatethrush@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 6:17 PM
To: Janis Karklins
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marco Lorenzoni'; "'Stéphane Van Gelder'"; 'Cavalli,
Olga'
Subject: Re: AoC A&T Review Teams

Chuck 

endorsing what Janis has said; seems strange that the Board Chair and the
GAC can, but the SO and other AC chairs cant...

 

I think its a question for each SO to determine, observing usual conflict of
interest rules and the common sense which you and others bring to making
these things work.

 

regards

 

Peter 

 

 

 

On 19/02/2010, at 11:20 AM, Janis Karklins wrote:





Chuck

I can speak for myself only: There have been comments that SO/AC chairs
should abstain from presenting their candidatures to the RTs.

There isn’t any formal provision which would prevent chairs to be
candidates. Especially, when the Chair of the GAC is a member of the RT ex
officio.

In order to ensure equal treatment of all Chairs, I am seriously considering
to nominate somebody to represent me in the RT. This is, of course, subject
of sufficient number and quality of governmental candidates for the RTs.

Best regards

JK

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: ceturtdiena, 2010. gada 18. februārī 22:21
To: Peter Dengate-Thrush; Janis Karklins
Cc: Marco Lorenzoni; Stéphane Van Gelder; Cavalli, Olga
Subject: AoC A&T Review Teams

Peter/Janis,

The following question was raised in the GNSO Council meeting today
regarding your final selection of AoC A&T Review Team members:  Is there any
anticipation that leaders in an SO or AC (councilors, chairs, etc.) would be
eliminated from consideration for the RT?  I stated that I was unaware of
any restrictions like this, but said I would ask the two of you.

For your information, there are differences of opinion on this issue in the
GNSO. 

BTW, thanks for the extension of time.

Chuck Gomes