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
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. februârî 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