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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@icann.org] 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@verisign.com] 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