Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"
Dear all, As reported in the monthly LACRALO January call, Alejandro Pisanty has presented the following petition: "ICANN has initiated a public comment on the Guidelines for Reviews on its activities: "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews": https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en MOTION: LACRALO must request the Board and the SO/AC leadership to review the procedures to integrate the "Review Teams". The result of said review should be the inclusion of RT members as a matter of law without requiring the approval of the SO/AC leadership as a whole. RATIONALE: the current system forms a closed system in which it is not possible to include independent opinieons. The process describes how to hire "independent experts" but this refers exclusively to consultants who will be selected in a similar way. The result of this closed cycle were immediate: the "SSRT2" revision or the second DNS security, stability and resiliency review has been put on hold for not achieving progress, which in my opinion is at least partly due to the closed constitution of the working team. STATEMENT OF INTEREST: I have a detailed knowledge of the process as I was Chair of the Initial SSRT (2010) and had submitted a request to participate in the second team as well, and I also have had discussions with the Board, SSAC and ALAC Chairs, as with other members who are part of those bodies. I would be grateful to the Secretariat for attaching a copy of this motion to the documents that will be reviewed this afternoon, as the matter structurally affects the decisions made by the CCWG which led the IANA transition". In this matter, we would like to start a consensus consultation to approve the motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty. This request for consensus will be made available to the Community for a period of three (03) days counted from Monday, January 29th, 2018 and will end on Thursday, February 1st, 2018, due to the time since the request was made and the importance of the subject. In the following link you will find the Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79432176 This call for consensus is based on paragraph 12.8 of the LACRALO RoP, which will be considered successful in the absence of significant opposition to it. Regards, Humberto Carrasco -LACRALO Chair Maritza Agüero – LACRALO Secretariat
I think inclusiveness is always laudable and should be a consistently-applied principle in promoting multi-stakeholder solutions, especially in the governance matters related to the domain name system. Team member selection is the specific issue referenced by Alejandro's motion. And the consultations now underway for "Operating Standards for ICANN-specific Reviews" does have something to say about that. It suggests '*community selection*' as the preferred model. So maybe what we need is a re-definition of '*community*' within the ICANN context. A couple of questions. Would that presentation of the proposed Operating Standards for Review Teams address the issue raised by Alejandro? And if we think it is inadequate to task, would it not be more helpful if responses here give global visibility to the matter? Have a look: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Maritza Y. Aguero Minano <myaguero@msn.com
wrote:
Dear all,
As reported in the monthly LACRALO January call, Alejandro Pisanty has presented the following petition:
"*ICANN has initiated a public comment on the Guidelines for Reviews on its activities: "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews":*
*https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en> *
*MOTION**: LACRALO must request the Board and the SO/AC leadership to review the procedures to integrate the "Review Teams". The result of said review should be the inclusion of RT members as a matter of law without requiring the approval of the SO/AC leadership as a whole. *
*RATIONALE**: the current system forms a closed system in which it is not possible to include independent opinieons. The process describes how to hire "independent experts" but this refers exclusively to consultants who will be selected in a similar way. The result of this closed cycle were immediate: the "SSRT2" revision or the second DNS security, stability and resiliency review has been put on hold for not achieving progress, which in my opinion is at least partly due to the closed constitution of the working team.*
*STATEMENT OF INTEREST**: I have a detailed knowledge of the process as I was Chair of the Initial SSRT (2010) and had submitted a request to participate in the second team as well, and I also have had discussions with the Board, SSAC and ALAC Chairs, as with other members who are part of those bodies.*
*I would be grateful to the Secretariat for attaching a copy of this motion to the documents that will be reviewed this afternoon, as the matter structurally affects the decisions made by the CCWG which led the IANA transition*".
In this matter, we would like to start a consensus consultation to approve the motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty.
This request for consensus will be made available to the Community for a period of three (03) days counted from Monday, January 29th, 2018 and will end on Thursday, February 1st, 2018, due to the time since the request was made and the importance of the subject.
In the following link you will find the Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79432176
This call for consensus is based on paragraph 12.8 of the LACRALO RoP, which will be considered successful in the absence of significant opposition to it.
Regards,
Humberto Carrasco -LACRALO Chair
Maritza Agüero – LACRALO Secretariat
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
Dear all, Thank you very much for your commets. I will post them on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79432176 Regards, Maritza ________________________________ De: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Enviado: lunes, 29 de enero de 2018 07:43 p. m. Para: Maritza Y. Aguero Minano CC: LACRALO discussion list Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews" I think inclusiveness is always laudable and should be a consistently-applied principle in promoting multi-stakeholder solutions, especially in the governance matters related to the domain name system. Team member selection is the specific issue referenced by Alejandro's motion. And the consultations now underway for "Operating Standards for ICANN-specific Reviews" does have something to say about that. It suggests 'community selection' as the preferred model. So maybe what we need is a re-definition of 'community' within the ICANN context. A couple of questions. Would that presentation of the proposed Operating Standards for Review Teams address the issue raised by Alejandro? And if we think it is inadequate to task, would it not be more helpful if responses here give global visibility to the matter? Have a look: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fpublic-comments%2Freviews-standards-2017-10-17-en&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1548539882684ed7d45f08d5678307d2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636528734818535062&sdata=4LKBTlbFku86x89U7jhqKmsATZditjtsCmPxPfOwoBk%3D&reserved=0> -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Maritza Y. Aguero Minano <myaguero@msn.com<mailto:myaguero@msn.com>> wrote: Dear all, As reported in the monthly LACRALO January call, Alejandro Pisanty has presented the following petition: "ICANN has initiated a public comment on the Guidelines for Reviews on its activities: "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews": https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fpublic-comments%2Freviews-standards-2017-10-17-en&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1548539882684ed7d45f08d5678307d2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636528734818535062&sdata=4LKBTlbFku86x89U7jhqKmsATZditjtsCmPxPfOwoBk%3D&reserved=0> MOTION: LACRALO must request the Board and the SO/AC leadership to review the procedures to integrate the "Review Teams". The result of said review should be the inclusion of RT members as a matter of law without requiring the approval of the SO/AC leadership as a whole. RATIONALE: the current system forms a closed system in which it is not possible to include independent opinieons. The process describes how to hire "independent experts" but this refers exclusively to consultants who will be selected in a similar way. The result of this closed cycle were immediate: the "SSRT2" revision or the second DNS security, stability and resiliency review has been put on hold for not achieving progress, which in my opinion is at least partly due to the closed constitution of the working team. STATEMENT OF INTEREST: I have a detailed knowledge of the process as I was Chair of the Initial SSRT (2010) and had submitted a request to participate in the second team as well, and I also have had discussions with the Board, SSAC and ALAC Chairs, as with other members who are part of those bodies. I would be grateful to the Secretariat for attaching a copy of this motion to the documents that will be reviewed this afternoon, as the matter structurally affects the decisions made by the CCWG which led the IANA transition". In this matter, we would like to start a consensus consultation to approve the motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty. This request for consensus will be made available to the Community for a period of three (03) days counted from Monday, January 29th, 2018 and will end on Thursday, February 1st, 2018, due to the time since the request was made and the importance of the subject. In the following link you will find the Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79432176<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fpages%2Fviewpage.action%3FpageId%3D79432176&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1548539882684ed7d45f08d5678307d2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636528734818535062&sdata=tjGrQEyfiJUCu2EDoyvgwzrO%2F9i9fLRfqBUaWjDQ36g%3D&reserved=0> This call for consensus is based on paragraph 12.8 of the LACRALO RoP, which will be considered successful in the absence of significant opposition to it. Regards, Humberto Carrasco -LACRALO Chair Maritza Agüero – LACRALO Secretariat _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarge-lists.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flac-discuss-en&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1548539882684ed7d45f08d5678307d2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636528734818535062&sdata=aQmY%2BVV8NTc3a8crg0pfCyW3Jbv%2BeSbq813tcRgXokI%3D&reserved=0>
Hi, the motion addresses what I perceive as a shortcoming of the Operating Standards. Community selection, as implemented, is creating a process that is too closed and can preclude an open enough composition of review teams. This can be at the root of the ongoing difficulties the SSR2 review has encountered and thus it can be that the problem presented is not hypothetical but something that has already had consequences for ICANN. I do intend to present a comment in the link indicated, individually, but find the matter of enough importance for LACRALO to raise it collectively. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: lac-discuss-en [lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 29 de enero de 2018 19:43 Hasta: Maritza Y. Aguero Minano CC: LACRALO discussion list Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews" I think inclusiveness is always laudable and should be a consistently-applied principle in promoting multi-stakeholder solutions, especially in the governance matters related to the domain name system. Team member selection is the specific issue referenced by Alejandro's motion. And the consultations now underway for "Operating Standards for ICANN-specific Reviews" does have something to say about that. It suggests 'community selection' as the preferred model. So maybe what we need is a re-definition of 'community' within the ICANN context. A couple of questions. Would that presentation of the proposed Operating Standards for Review Teams address the issue raised by Alejandro? And if we think it is inadequate to task, would it not be more helpful if responses here give global visibility to the matter? Have a look: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Maritza Y. Aguero Minano <myaguero@msn.com<mailto:myaguero@msn.com>> wrote: Dear all, As reported in the monthly LACRALO January call, Alejandro Pisanty has presented the following petition: "ICANN has initiated a public comment on the Guidelines for Reviews on its activities: "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews": https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en MOTION: LACRALO must request the Board and the SO/AC leadership to review the procedures to integrate the "Review Teams". The result of said review should be the inclusion of RT members as a matter of law without requiring the approval of the SO/AC leadership as a whole. RATIONALE: the current system forms a closed system in which it is not possible to include independent opinieons. The process describes how to hire "independent experts" but this refers exclusively to consultants who will be selected in a similar way. The result of this closed cycle were immediate: the "SSRT2" revision or the second DNS security, stability and resiliency review has been put on hold for not achieving progress, which in my opinion is at least partly due to the closed constitution of the working team. STATEMENT OF INTEREST: I have a detailed knowledge of the process as I was Chair of the Initial SSRT (2010) and had submitted a request to participate in the second team as well, and I also have had discussions with the Board, SSAC and ALAC Chairs, as with other members who are part of those bodies. I would be grateful to the Secretariat for attaching a copy of this motion to the documents that will be reviewed this afternoon, as the matter structurally affects the decisions made by the CCWG which led the IANA transition". In this matter, we would like to start a consensus consultation to approve the motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty. This request for consensus will be made available to the Community for a period of three (03) days counted from Monday, January 29th, 2018 and will end on Thursday, February 1st, 2018, due to the time since the request was made and the importance of the subject. In the following link you will find the Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79432176 This call for consensus is based on paragraph 12.8 of the LACRALO RoP, which will be considered successful in the absence of significant opposition to it. Regards, Humberto Carrasco -LACRALO Chair Maritza Agüero – LACRALO Secretariat _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
Dear all, All comments are already posted on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79432176 Regards, Maritza ________________________________ De: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx> Enviado: lunes, 29 de enero de 2018 08:19 p. m. Para: Carlton Samuels; Maritza Y. Aguero Minano CC: LACRALO discussion list Asunto: RE: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews" Hi, the motion addresses what I perceive as a shortcoming of the Operating Standards. Community selection, as implemented, is creating a process that is too closed and can preclude an open enough composition of review teams. This can be at the root of the ongoing difficulties the SSR2 review has encountered and thus it can be that the problem presented is not hypothetical but something that has already had consequences for ICANN. I do intend to present a comment in the link indicated, individually, but find the matter of enough importance for LACRALO to raise it collectively. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: lac-discuss-en [lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 29 de enero de 2018 19:43 Hasta: Maritza Y. Aguero Minano CC: LACRALO discussion list Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews" I think inclusiveness is always laudable and should be a consistently-applied principle in promoting multi-stakeholder solutions, especially in the governance matters related to the domain name system. Team member selection is the specific issue referenced by Alejandro's motion. And the consultations now underway for "Operating Standards for ICANN-specific Reviews" does have something to say about that. It suggests 'community selection' as the preferred model. So maybe what we need is a re-definition of 'community' within the ICANN context. A couple of questions. Would that presentation of the proposed Operating Standards for Review Teams address the issue raised by Alejandro? And if we think it is inadequate to task, would it not be more helpful if responses here give global visibility to the matter? Have a look: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fpublic-comments%2Freviews-standards-2017-10-17-en&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc3d0abea960c41d0f64d08d56787ed61%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636528755848913839&sdata=Fjs2AnU4jxsMox6dTt5pEOT2iRRKOkU8Zf2s%2Fpvm4Yw%3D&reserved=0> -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Maritza Y. Aguero Minano <myaguero@msn.com<mailto:myaguero@msn.com>> wrote: Dear all, As reported in the monthly LACRALO January call, Alejandro Pisanty has presented the following petition: "ICANN has initiated a public comment on the Guidelines for Reviews on its activities: "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews": https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fpublic-comments%2Freviews-standards-2017-10-17-en&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc3d0abea960c41d0f64d08d56787ed61%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636528755848913839&sdata=Fjs2AnU4jxsMox6dTt5pEOT2iRRKOkU8Zf2s%2Fpvm4Yw%3D&reserved=0> MOTION: LACRALO must request the Board and the SO/AC leadership to review the procedures to integrate the "Review Teams". The result of said review should be the inclusion of RT members as a matter of law without requiring the approval of the SO/AC leadership as a whole. RATIONALE: the current system forms a closed system in which it is not possible to include independent opinieons. The process describes how to hire "independent experts" but this refers exclusively to consultants who will be selected in a similar way. The result of this closed cycle were immediate: the "SSRT2" revision or the second DNS security, stability and resiliency review has been put on hold for not achieving progress, which in my opinion is at least partly due to the closed constitution of the working team. STATEMENT OF INTEREST: I have a detailed knowledge of the process as I was Chair of the Initial SSRT (2010) and had submitted a request to participate in the second team as well, and I also have had discussions with the Board, SSAC and ALAC Chairs, as with other members who are part of those bodies. I would be grateful to the Secretariat for attaching a copy of this motion to the documents that will be reviewed this afternoon, as the matter structurally affects the decisions made by the CCWG which led the IANA transition". In this matter, we would like to start a consensus consultation to approve the motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty. This request for consensus will be made available to the Community for a period of three (03) days counted from Monday, January 29th, 2018 and will end on Thursday, February 1st, 2018, due to the time since the request was made and the importance of the subject. In the following link you will find the Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79432176<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fpages%2Fviewpage.action%3FpageId%3D79432176&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc3d0abea960c41d0f64d08d56787ed61%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636528755848913839&sdata=jc%2FZEGNLq3q2ywvjJXFs8IGmVbfOMzZGyPjZs3zdaac%3D&reserved=0> This call for consensus is based on paragraph 12.8 of the LACRALO RoP, which will be considered successful in the absence of significant opposition to it. Regards, Humberto Carrasco -LACRALO Chair Maritza Agüero – LACRALO Secretariat _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarge-lists.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flac-discuss-en&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc3d0abea960c41d0f64d08d56787ed61%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636528755848913839&sdata=XLZ8YXxaxRahXkgYudieZtgNbBadUidzvgY9gCLHbtY%3D&reserved=0>
Thanks for the clarification Alejandro. Your resolution seems to suggest disqualifying SO/ACs from selecting RT members. If this is removed from SO/ACs, it goes to ICANN the organisation, no? So I extracted the obligations of ICANN org in what is proposed: ü Timely publication of call for volunteers; ü Determining the need to extend the call, in case of insufficiently diverse or skilled pool of applicants; ü Assure that each applicant indicates which SO/AC from which they seek nomination and encourage applicants to familiarize themselves with the work and leadership of the SO/AC from which they seek nomination ü Provide a non-binding assessment of the skillset of each of the applicants relative to the skills and experiences identified in the call for volunteers; ü Provide each SO/AC with a list of those applicants who have sought their respective nomination, including all application materials, and the non-binding skillset assessment; ü Coordinate the meeting of SO/AC Chairs for the final selection of the review team. The call for volunteers must: ü Include a mandatory field for candidate to indicate which of the seven SO/ACs from which they seek nomination. ü Include a Statement of Interest (SOI) to be filled in by every candidate. ü Solicit information from applicants regarding their skillset and experience, relevant to the review. Set an expectation that a review team member may be asked to execute a nondisclosure agreement. I highlighted the duties of ICANN org that is being proposed because even as I am for diversity and how that is achieved, I'm concerned about a concentration of power. Would your proposal not concentrate power unconditionally in ICANN org? Best, -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Hi,
the motion addresses what I perceive as a shortcoming of the Operating Standards. Community selection, as implemented, is creating a process that is too closed and can preclude an open enough composition of review teams. This can be at the root of the ongoing difficulties the SSR2 review has encountered and thus it can be that the problem presented is not hypothetical but something that has already had consequences for ICANN.
I do intend to present a comment in the link indicated, individually, but find the matter of enough importance for LACRALO to raise it collectively.
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 <+52%201%2055%204144%204475> FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 <+52%2055%204144%204475> DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 <+52%2055%204144%204475> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/ 22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------------------------ *Desde:* lac-discuss-en [lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels@gmail.com] *Enviado el:* lunes, 29 de enero de 2018 19:43 *Hasta:* Maritza Y. Aguero Minano *CC:* LACRALO discussion list *Asunto:* Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"
I think inclusiveness is always laudable and should be a consistently-applied principle in promoting multi-stakeholder solutions, especially in the governance matters related to the domain name system.
Team member selection is the specific issue referenced by Alejandro's motion. And the consultations now underway for "Operating Standards for ICANN-specific Reviews" does have something to say about that. It suggests '*community selection*' as the preferred model. So maybe what we need is a re-definition of '*community*' within the ICANN context.
A couple of questions. Would that presentation of the proposed Operating Standards for Review Teams address the issue raised by Alejandro?
And if we think it is inadequate to task, would it not be more helpful if responses here give global visibility to the matter? Have a look:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799 <(876)%20818-1799> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Maritza Y. Aguero Minano < myaguero@msn.com> wrote:
Dear all,
As reported in the monthly LACRALO January call, Alejandro Pisanty has presented the following petition:
"*ICANN has initiated a public comment on the Guidelines for Reviews on its activities: "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews":*
*https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en> *
*MOTION**: LACRALO must request the Board and the SO/AC leadership to review the procedures to integrate the "Review Teams". The result of said review should be the inclusion of RT members as a matter of law without requiring the approval of the SO/AC leadership as a whole. *
*RATIONALE**: the current system forms a closed system in which it is not possible to include independent opinieons. The process describes how to hire "independent experts" but this refers exclusively to consultants who will be selected in a similar way. The result of this closed cycle were immediate: the "SSRT2" revision or the second DNS security, stability and resiliency review has been put on hold for not achieving progress, which in my opinion is at least partly due to the closed constitution of the working team.*
*STATEMENT OF INTEREST**: I have a detailed knowledge of the process as I was Chair of the Initial SSRT (2010) and had submitted a request to participate in the second team as well, and I also have had discussions with the Board, SSAC and ALAC Chairs, as with other members who are part of those bodies.*
*I would be grateful to the Secretariat for attaching a copy of this motion to the documents that will be reviewed this afternoon, as the matter structurally affects the decisions made by the CCWG which led the IANA transition*".
In this matter, we would like to start a consensus consultation to approve the motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty.
This request for consensus will be made available to the Community for a period of three (03) days counted from Monday, January 29th, 2018 and will end on Thursday, February 1st, 2018, due to the time since the request was made and the importance of the subject.
In the following link you will find the Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=794 32176
This call for consensus is based on paragraph 12.8 of the LACRALO RoP, which will be considered successful in the absence of significant opposition to it.
Regards,
Humberto Carrasco -LACRALO Chair
Maritza Agüero – LACRALO Secretariat
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
Carlton, thanks for the careful read and underlining the relevant documentation. The pendulum swing in which the CCWG's for the IANA transition was careful to avoid a concentration of power in the ICANN professional organization has led to a paradoxal effect in which the SO/AC leadership has incentives to "circle the wagons" and to perform a bit too much of internal "horse-trading." We lived through a similar analysis in the 2003 Evolution and Reform Process, when we created the Nominating Committee and had to take care that some politics of the GNSO (previously DNSO) and other ICANN components was not transferred to the NomCom. The motion I put forward would not undo the SO/AC part but would add the opportunity for a correction to the undesirable, pardoxal effect I have described. This is also important because the rules for the accountability, transparency, and liability for the circle of SO/AC leadership have not yet been fully developed to the level of the Board's requirements and risks. This adds to the incentives to avoid a review that could scrutinize the organization in ways that this circle would not desire, yet would be important for the health of the organization as a whole and in consequence would also stave off the criticism that it is too self-contained. These are already around since before the IANA transition and may get worse (whether founded or unfounded, it is always better to have objective grounds to dismiss them.) Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Enviado el: martes, 30 de enero de 2018 19:32 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch CC: Maritza Y. Aguero Minano; LACRALO discussion list Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews" Thanks for the clarification Alejandro. Your resolution seems to suggest disqualifying SO/ACs from selecting RT members. If this is removed from SO/ACs, it goes to ICANN the organisation, no? So I extracted the obligations of ICANN org in what is proposed: • Timely publication of call for volunteers; • Determining the need to extend the call, in case of insufficiently diverse or skilled pool of applicants; • Assure that each applicant indicates which SO/AC from which they seek nomination and encourage applicants to familiarize themselves with the work and leadership of the SO/AC from which they seek nomination • Provide a non-binding assessment of the skillset of each of the applicants relative to the skills and experiences identified in the call for volunteers; • Provide each SO/AC with a list of those applicants who have sought their respective nomination, including all application materials, and the non-binding skillset assessment; • Coordinate the meeting of SO/AC Chairs for the final selection of the review team. The call for volunteers must: • Include a mandatory field for candidate to indicate which of the seven SO/ACs from which they seek nomination. • Include a Statement of Interest (SOI) to be filled in by every candidate. • Solicit information from applicants regarding their skillset and experience, relevant to the review. Set an expectation that a review team member may be asked to execute a nondisclosure agreement. I highlighted the duties of ICANN org that is being proposed because even as I am for diversity and how that is achieved, I'm concerned about a concentration of power. Would your proposal not concentrate power unconditionally in ICANN org? Best, -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx<mailto:apisan@unam.mx>> wrote: Hi, the motion addresses what I perceive as a shortcoming of the Operating Standards. Community selection, as implemented, is creating a process that is too closed and can preclude an open enough composition of review teams. This can be at the root of the ongoing difficulties the SSR2 review has encountered and thus it can be that the problem presented is not hypothetical but something that has already had consequences for ICANN. I do intend to present a comment in the link indicated, individually, but find the matter of enough importance for LACRALO to raise it collectively. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475<tel:+52%201%2055%204144%204475> FROM ABROAD +525541444475<tel:+52%2055%204144%204475> DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475<tel:+52%2055%204144%204475> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: lac-discuss-en [lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] en nombre de Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>] Enviado el: lunes, 29 de enero de 2018 19:43 Hasta: Maritza Y. Aguero Minano CC: LACRALO discussion list Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews" I think inclusiveness is always laudable and should be a consistently-applied principle in promoting multi-stakeholder solutions, especially in the governance matters related to the domain name system. Team member selection is the specific issue referenced by Alejandro's motion. And the consultations now underway for "Operating Standards for ICANN-specific Reviews" does have something to say about that. It suggests 'community selection' as the preferred model. So maybe what we need is a re-definition of 'community' within the ICANN context. A couple of questions. Would that presentation of the proposed Operating Standards for Review Teams address the issue raised by Alejandro? And if we think it is inadequate to task, would it not be more helpful if responses here give global visibility to the matter? Have a look: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799<tel:(876)%20818-1799> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Maritza Y. Aguero Minano <myaguero@msn.com<mailto:myaguero@msn.com>> wrote: Dear all, As reported in the monthly LACRALO January call, Alejandro Pisanty has presented the following petition: "ICANN has initiated a public comment on the Guidelines for Reviews on its activities: "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews": https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en MOTION: LACRALO must request the Board and the SO/AC leadership to review the procedures to integrate the "Review Teams". The result of said review should be the inclusion of RT members as a matter of law without requiring the approval of the SO/AC leadership as a whole. RATIONALE: the current system forms a closed system in which it is not possible to include independent opinieons. The process describes how to hire "independent experts" but this refers exclusively to consultants who will be selected in a similar way. The result of this closed cycle were immediate: the "SSRT2" revision or the second DNS security, stability and resiliency review has been put on hold for not achieving progress, which in my opinion is at least partly due to the closed constitution of the working team. STATEMENT OF INTEREST: I have a detailed knowledge of the process as I was Chair of the Initial SSRT (2010) and had submitted a request to participate in the second team as well, and I also have had discussions with the Board, SSAC and ALAC Chairs, as with other members who are part of those bodies. I would be grateful to the Secretariat for attaching a copy of this motion to the documents that will be reviewed this afternoon, as the matter structurally affects the decisions made by the CCWG which led the IANA transition". In this matter, we would like to start a consensus consultation to approve the motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty. This request for consensus will be made available to the Community for a period of three (03) days counted from Monday, January 29th, 2018 and will end on Thursday, February 1st, 2018, due to the time since the request was made and the importance of the subject. In the following link you will find the Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79432176 This call for consensus is based on paragraph 12.8 of the LACRALO RoP, which will be considered successful in the absence of significant opposition to it. Regards, Humberto Carrasco -LACRALO Chair Maritza Agüero – LACRALO Secretariat _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
The motion to submit a comment on "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews" to have "independent" Review Team members not endorsed by any SO/AC is problematic for several reasons : - Who would assess and decide to select such members if not the AC/SOs? If ICANN, it would likely (as Carlton suggests) concentrate power to ICANN to review ICANN. - "Independent" members applying will likely be from the ICANN stakeholder community (from a AC or SO). For them to be somehow not accountable, or coordinating with their AC/SO throughout the Review is unusual - independent members could also seek their personal interest/agendas and disrupt the review team's work. - What happens when independent members resign? Who would replace them? Furthermore the proposal is quite detailed: - having a scope drafting team setting the scope before the review starts with appropriate review, public comment and approval. - call for volunteers to be on the review team, noting criteria needed. - after the call, each SO/AC, following its own internal processes, nominates up to seven candidates for each review team selecting from the pool of applicants that responded to the open call for volunteers. - ICANN organization Non-Binding Diversity and Skill Analysis of the presumed review team done and shared with the SO/ACs chairs - the purpose of this additional step is to alert the Chairs of any shortcomings in diversity and skillset across the full anticipated composition, and to allow them to confer with their respective SO/ACs in order to make changes to nominations or otherwise receive modified direction on completing the selection process. - how the review team does it work, how the review team can adjust the scope if it deems necessary , solicit independent experts, etc. - dealing with resignation of review team members - removal of review team members - having observers on review teams etc, which appears sufficient to fulfill the mission of the reviews. I therefore cannot support Alejandro's motion as I don't see how such a change will help achieve the goals of the ICANN reviews. I do thank Alejandro for the suggestion, it forced me (and hopefully others in LACRALO) to scrutinize and reflect on the proposed policy more intently. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:09 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Carlton,
thanks for the careful read and underlining the relevant documentation.
The pendulum swing in which the CCWG's for the IANA transition was careful to avoid a concentration of power in the ICANN professional organization has led to a paradoxal effect in which the SO/AC leadership has incentives to "circle the wagons" and to perform a bit too much of internal "horse-trading." We lived through a similar analysis in the 2003 Evolution and Reform Process, when we created the Nominating Committee and had to take care that some politics of the GNSO (previously DNSO) and other ICANN components was not transferred to the NomCom.
The motion I put forward would not undo the SO/AC part but would add the opportunity for a correction to the undesirable, pardoxal effect I have described.
This is also important because the rules for the accountability, transparency, and liability for the circle of SO/AC leadership have not yet been fully developed to the level of the Board's requirements and risks. This adds to the incentives to avoid a review that could scrutinize the organization in ways that this circle would not desire, yet would be important for the health of the organization as a whole and in consequence would also stave off the criticism that it is too self-contained. These are already around since before the IANA transition and may get worse (whether founded or unfounded, it is always better to have objective grounds to dismiss them.)
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
________________________________ Desde: Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Enviado el: martes, 30 de enero de 2018 19:32 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch CC: Maritza Y. Aguero Minano; LACRALO discussion list
Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"
Thanks for the clarification Alejandro. Your resolution seems to suggest disqualifying SO/ACs from selecting RT members. If this is removed from SO/ACs, it goes to ICANN the organisation, no? So I extracted the obligations of ICANN org in what is proposed:
ü Timely publication of call for volunteers;
ü Determining the need to extend the call, in case of insufficiently diverse or skilled pool of applicants;
ü Assure that each applicant indicates which SO/AC from which they seek nomination and encourage applicants to familiarize themselves with the work and leadership of the SO/AC from which they seek nomination
ü Provide a non-binding assessment of the skillset of each of the applicants relative to the skills and experiences identified in the call for volunteers;
ü Provide each SO/AC with a list of those applicants who have sought their respective nomination, including all application materials, and the non-binding skillset assessment;
ü Coordinate the meeting of SO/AC Chairs for the final selection of the review team.
The call for volunteers must:
ü Include a mandatory field for candidate to indicate which of the seven SO/ACs from which they seek nomination.
ü Include a Statement of Interest (SOI) to be filled in by every candidate.
ü Solicit information from applicants regarding their skillset and experience, relevant to the review.
Set an expectation that a review team member may be asked to execute a nondisclosure agreement.
I highlighted the duties of ICANN org that is being proposed because even as I am for diversity and how that is achieved, I'm concerned about a concentration of power. Would your proposal not concentrate power unconditionally in ICANN org?
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Hi,
the motion addresses what I perceive as a shortcoming of the Operating Standards. Community selection, as implemented, is creating a process that is too closed and can preclude an open enough composition of review teams. This can be at the root of the ongoing difficulties the SSR2 review has encountered and thus it can be that the problem presented is not hypothetical but something that has already had consequences for ICANN.
I do intend to present a comment in the link indicated, individually, but find the matter of enough importance for LACRALO to raise it collectively.
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
________________________________ Desde: lac-discuss-en [lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 29 de enero de 2018 19:43 Hasta: Maritza Y. Aguero Minano CC: LACRALO discussion list Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"
I think inclusiveness is always laudable and should be a consistently-applied principle in promoting multi-stakeholder solutions, especially in the governance matters related to the domain name system.
Team member selection is the specific issue referenced by Alejandro's motion. And the consultations now underway for "Operating Standards for ICANN-specific Reviews" does have something to say about that. It suggests 'community selection' as the preferred model. So maybe what we need is a re-definition of 'community' within the ICANN context.
A couple of questions. Would that presentation of the proposed Operating Standards for Review Teams address the issue raised by Alejandro?
And if we think it is inadequate to task, would it not be more helpful if responses here give global visibility to the matter? Have a look:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Maritza Y. Aguero Minano <myaguero@msn.com> wrote:
Dear all,
As reported in the monthly LACRALO January call, Alejandro Pisanty has presented the following petition:
"ICANN has initiated a public comment on the Guidelines for Reviews on its activities: "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews":
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en
MOTION: LACRALO must request the Board and the SO/AC leadership to review the procedures to integrate the "Review Teams". The result of said review should be the inclusion of RT members as a matter of law without requiring the approval of the SO/AC leadership as a whole.
RATIONALE: the current system forms a closed system in which it is not possible to include independent opinieons. The process describes how to hire "independent experts" but this refers exclusively to consultants who will be selected in a similar way. The result of this closed cycle were immediate: the "SSRT2" revision or the second DNS security, stability and resiliency review has been put on hold for not achieving progress, which in my opinion is at least partly due to the closed constitution of the working team.
STATEMENT OF INTEREST: I have a detailed knowledge of the process as I was Chair of the Initial SSRT (2010) and had submitted a request to participate in the second team as well, and I also have had discussions with the Board, SSAC and ALAC Chairs, as with other members who are part of those bodies.
I would be grateful to the Secretariat for attaching a copy of this motion to the documents that will be reviewed this afternoon, as the matter structurally affects the decisions made by the CCWG which led the IANA transition".
In this matter, we would like to start a consensus consultation to approve the motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty.
This request for consensus will be made available to the Community for a period of three (03) days counted from Monday, January 29th, 2018 and will end on Thursday, February 1st, 2018, due to the time since the request was made and the importance of the subject.
In the following link you will find the Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79432176
This call for consensus is based on paragraph 12.8 of the LACRALO RoP, which will be considered successful in the absence of significant opposition to it.
Regards,
Humberto Carrasco -LACRALO Chair
Maritza Agüero – LACRALO Secretariat
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
+1 Dev Niran Beharry On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:
The motion to submit a comment on "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews" to have "independent" Review Team members not endorsed by any SO/AC is problematic for several reasons :
- Who would assess and decide to select such members if not the AC/SOs? If ICANN, it would likely (as Carlton suggests) concentrate power to ICANN to review ICANN. - "Independent" members applying will likely be from the ICANN stakeholder community (from a AC or SO). For them to be somehow not accountable, or coordinating with their AC/SO throughout the Review is unusual - independent members could also seek their personal interest/agendas and disrupt the review team's work. - What happens when independent members resign? Who would replace them?
Furthermore the proposal is quite detailed: - having a scope drafting team setting the scope before the review starts with appropriate review, public comment and approval. - call for volunteers to be on the review team, noting criteria needed. - after the call, each SO/AC, following its own internal processes, nominates up to seven candidates for each review team selecting from the pool of applicants that responded to the open call for volunteers. - ICANN organization Non-Binding Diversity and Skill Analysis of the presumed review team done and shared with the SO/ACs chairs - the purpose of this additional step is to alert the Chairs of any shortcomings in diversity and skillset across the full anticipated composition, and to allow them to confer with their respective SO/ACs in order to make changes to nominations or otherwise receive modified direction on completing the selection process. - how the review team does it work, how the review team can adjust the scope if it deems necessary , solicit independent experts, etc. - dealing with resignation of review team members - removal of review team members - having observers on review teams
etc, which appears sufficient to fulfill the mission of the reviews.
I therefore cannot support Alejandro's motion as I don't see how such a change will help achieve the goals of the ICANN reviews.
I do thank Alejandro for the suggestion, it forced me (and hopefully others in LACRALO) to scrutinize and reflect on the proposed policy more intently.
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:09 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Carlton,
thanks for the careful read and underlining the relevant documentation.
The pendulum swing in which the CCWG's for the IANA transition was careful to avoid a concentration of power in the ICANN professional organization has led to a paradoxal effect in which the SO/AC leadership has incentives to "circle the wagons" and to perform a bit too much of internal "horse-trading." We lived through a similar analysis in the 2003 Evolution and Reform Process, when we created the Nominating Committee and had to take care that some politics of the GNSO (previously DNSO) and other ICANN components was not transferred to the NomCom.
The motion I put forward would not undo the SO/AC part but would add the opportunity for a correction to the undesirable, pardoxal effect I have described.
This is also important because the rules for the accountability, transparency, and liability for the circle of SO/AC leadership have not yet been fully developed to the level of the Board's requirements and risks. This adds to the incentives to avoid a review that could scrutinize the organization in ways that this circle would not desire, yet would be important for the health of the organization as a whole and in consequence would also stave off the criticism that it is too self-contained. These are already around since before the IANA transition and may get worse (whether founded or unfounded, it is always better to have objective grounds to dismiss them.)
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
________________________________ Desde: Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Enviado el: martes, 30 de enero de 2018 19:32 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch CC: Maritza Y. Aguero Minano; LACRALO discussion list
Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"
Thanks for the clarification Alejandro. Your resolution seems to suggest disqualifying SO/ACs from selecting RT members. If this is removed from SO/ACs, it goes to ICANN the organisation, no? So I extracted the obligations of ICANN org in what is proposed:
ü Timely publication of call for volunteers;
ü Determining the need to extend the call, in case of insufficiently diverse or skilled pool of applicants;
ü Assure that each applicant indicates which SO/AC from which they seek nomination and encourage applicants to familiarize themselves with the work and leadership of the SO/AC from which they seek nomination
ü Provide a non-binding assessment of the skillset of each of the applicants relative to the skills and experiences identified in the call for volunteers;
ü Provide each SO/AC with a list of those applicants who have sought their respective nomination, including all application materials, and the non-binding skillset assessment;
ü Coordinate the meeting of SO/AC Chairs for the final selection of the review team.
The call for volunteers must:
ü Include a mandatory field for candidate to indicate which of the seven SO/ACs from which they seek nomination.
ü Include a Statement of Interest (SOI) to be filled in by every candidate.
ü Solicit information from applicants regarding their skillset and experience, relevant to the review.
Set an expectation that a review team member may be asked to execute a nondisclosure agreement.
I highlighted the duties of ICANN org that is being proposed because even as I am for diversity and how that is achieved, I'm concerned about a concentration of power. Would your proposal not concentrate power unconditionally in ICANN org?
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Hi,
the motion addresses what I perceive as a shortcoming of the Operating Standards. Community selection, as implemented, is creating a process that is too closed and can preclude an open enough composition of review teams. This can be at the root of the ongoing difficulties the SSR2 review has encountered and thus it can be that the problem presented is not hypothetical but something that has already had consequences for ICANN.
I do intend to present a comment in the link indicated, individually, but find the matter of enough importance for LACRALO to raise it collectively.
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
________________________________ Desde: lac-discuss-en [lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 29 de enero de 2018 19:43 Hasta: Maritza Y. Aguero Minano CC: LACRALO discussion list Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"
I think inclusiveness is always laudable and should be a consistently-applied principle in promoting multi-stakeholder solutions, especially in the governance matters related to the domain name system.
Team member selection is the specific issue referenced by Alejandro's motion. And the consultations now underway for "Operating Standards for ICANN-specific Reviews" does have something to say about that. It suggests 'community selection' as the preferred model. So maybe what we need is a re-definition of 'community' within the ICANN context.
A couple of questions. Would that presentation of the proposed Operating Standards for Review Teams address the issue raised by Alejandro?
And if we think it is inadequate to task, would it not be more helpful if responses here give global visibility to the matter? Have a look:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Maritza Y. Aguero Minano <myaguero@msn.com> wrote:
Dear all,
As reported in the monthly LACRALO January call, Alejandro Pisanty has presented the following petition:
"ICANN has initiated a public comment on the Guidelines for Reviews on its activities: "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews":
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en
MOTION: LACRALO must request the Board and the SO/AC leadership to review the procedures to integrate the "Review Teams". The result of said review should be the inclusion of RT members as a matter of law without requiring the approval of the SO/AC leadership as a whole.
RATIONALE: the current system forms a closed system in which it is not possible to include independent opinieons. The process describes how to hire "independent experts" but this refers exclusively to consultants who will be selected in a similar way. The result of this closed cycle were immediate: the "SSRT2" revision or the second DNS security, stability and resiliency review has been put on hold for not achieving progress, which in my opinion is at least partly due to the closed constitution of the working team.
STATEMENT OF INTEREST: I have a detailed knowledge of the process as I was Chair of the Initial SSRT (2010) and had submitted a request to participate in the second team as well, and I also have had discussions with the Board, SSAC and ALAC Chairs, as with other members who are part of those bodies.
I would be grateful to the Secretariat for attaching a copy of this motion to the documents that will be reviewed this afternoon, as the matter structurally affects the decisions made by the CCWG which led the IANA transition".
In this matter, we would like to start a consensus consultation to approve the motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty.
This request for consensus will be made available to the Community for a period of three (03) days counted from Monday, January 29th, 2018 and will end on Thursday, February 1st, 2018, due to the time since the request was made and the importance of the subject.
In the following link you will find the Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79432176
This call for consensus is based on paragraph 12.8 of the LACRALO RoP, which will be considered successful in the absence of significant opposition to it.
Regards,
Humberto Carrasco -LACRALO Chair
Maritza Agüero – LACRALO Secretariat
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
+1. Because of my concerns about inclusiveness and diversity, I too have given this motion some serious thought. However, we believe the logical remedy is hardly fit for purpose and could likely inflame the situation. Specific to the immediate trigger for this motion, I've seen where the collective SO/AC leadership has responded to concerns about the SSR Review with a roadmap for progressing that agenda. It is entirely reasonable that their collective views may not find favour with all of us at this time. We can imagine that turnover in SO/AC leadership may enable a new perspective to emerge. Add these to the reasons outlined by Dev. I cannot support this motion. -Carlton Samuels The University of the West Indies ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 9:58 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:
The motion to submit a comment on "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews" to have "independent" Review Team members not endorsed by any SO/AC is problematic for several reasons :
- Who would assess and decide to select such members if not the AC/SOs? If ICANN, it would likely (as Carlton suggests) concentrate power to ICANN to review ICANN. - "Independent" members applying will likely be from the ICANN stakeholder community (from a AC or SO). For them to be somehow not accountable, or coordinating with their AC/SO throughout the Review is unusual - independent members could also seek their personal interest/agendas and disrupt the review team's work. - What happens when independent members resign? Who would replace them?
Furthermore the proposal is quite detailed: - having a scope drafting team setting the scope before the review starts with appropriate review, public comment and approval. - call for volunteers to be on the review team, noting criteria needed. - after the call, each SO/AC, following its own internal processes, nominates up to seven candidates for each review team selecting from the pool of applicants that responded to the open call for volunteers. - ICANN organization Non-Binding Diversity and Skill Analysis of the presumed review team done and shared with the SO/ACs chairs - the purpose of this additional step is to alert the Chairs of any shortcomings in diversity and skillset across the full anticipated composition, and to allow them to confer with their respective SO/ACs in order to make changes to nominations or otherwise receive modified direction on completing the selection process. - how the review team does it work, how the review team can adjust the scope if it deems necessary , solicit independent experts, etc. - dealing with resignation of review team members - removal of review team members - having observers on review teams
etc, which appears sufficient to fulfill the mission of the reviews.
I therefore cannot support Alejandro's motion as I don't see how such a change will help achieve the goals of the ICANN reviews.
I do thank Alejandro for the suggestion, it forced me (and hopefully others in LACRALO) to scrutinize and reflect on the proposed policy more intently.
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:09 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Carlton,
thanks for the careful read and underlining the relevant documentation.
The pendulum swing in which the CCWG's for the IANA transition was careful to avoid a concentration of power in the ICANN professional organization has led to a paradoxal effect in which the SO/AC leadership has incentives to "circle the wagons" and to perform a bit too much of internal "horse-trading." We lived through a similar analysis in the 2003 Evolution and Reform Process, when we created the Nominating Committee and had to take care that some politics of the GNSO (previously DNSO) and other ICANN components was not transferred to the NomCom.
The motion I put forward would not undo the SO/AC part but would add the opportunity for a correction to the undesirable, pardoxal effect I have described.
This is also important because the rules for the accountability, transparency, and liability for the circle of SO/AC leadership have not yet been fully developed to the level of the Board's requirements and risks. This adds to the incentives to avoid a review that could scrutinize the organization in ways that this circle would not desire, yet would be important for the health of the organization as a whole and in consequence would also stave off the criticism that it is too self-contained. These are already around since before the IANA transition and may get worse (whether founded or unfounded, it is always better to have objective grounds to dismiss them.)
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
________________________________ Desde: Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Enviado el: martes, 30 de enero de 2018 19:32 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch CC: Maritza Y. Aguero Minano; LACRALO discussion list
Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"
Thanks for the clarification Alejandro. Your resolution seems to suggest disqualifying SO/ACs from selecting RT members. If this is removed from SO/ACs, it goes to ICANN the organisation, no? So I extracted the obligations of ICANN org in what is proposed:
ü Timely publication of call for volunteers;
ü Determining the need to extend the call, in case of insufficiently diverse or skilled pool of applicants;
ü Assure that each applicant indicates which SO/AC from which they seek nomination and encourage applicants to familiarize themselves with the work and leadership of the SO/AC from which they seek nomination
ü Provide a non-binding assessment of the skillset of each of the applicants relative to the skills and experiences identified in the call for volunteers;
ü Provide each SO/AC with a list of those applicants who have sought their respective nomination, including all application materials, and the non-binding skillset assessment;
ü Coordinate the meeting of SO/AC Chairs for the final selection of the review team.
The call for volunteers must:
ü Include a mandatory field for candidate to indicate which of the seven SO/ACs from which they seek nomination.
ü Include a Statement of Interest (SOI) to be filled in by every candidate.
ü Solicit information from applicants regarding their skillset and experience, relevant to the review.
Set an expectation that a review team member may be asked to execute a nondisclosure agreement.
I highlighted the duties of ICANN org that is being proposed because even as I am for diversity and how that is achieved, I'm concerned about a concentration of power. Would your proposal not concentrate power unconditionally in ICANN org?
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Hi,
the motion addresses what I perceive as a shortcoming of the Operating Standards. Community selection, as implemented, is creating a process that is too closed and can preclude an open enough composition of review teams. This can be at the root of the ongoing difficulties the SSR2 review has encountered and thus it can be that the problem presented is not hypothetical but something that has already had consequences for ICANN.
I do intend to present a comment in the link indicated, individually, but find the matter of enough importance for LACRALO to raise it collectively.
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
________________________________ Desde: lac-discuss-en [lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 29 de enero de 2018 19:43 Hasta: Maritza Y. Aguero Minano CC: LACRALO discussion list Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"
I think inclusiveness is always laudable and should be a consistently-applied principle in promoting multi-stakeholder solutions, especially in the governance matters related to the domain name system.
Team member selection is the specific issue referenced by Alejandro's motion. And the consultations now underway for "Operating Standards for ICANN-specific Reviews" does have something to say about that. It suggests 'community selection' as the preferred model. So maybe what we need is a re-definition of 'community' within the ICANN context.
A couple of questions. Would that presentation of the proposed Operating Standards for Review Teams address the issue raised by Alejandro?
And if we think it is inadequate to task, would it not be more helpful if responses here give global visibility to the matter? Have a look:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Maritza Y. Aguero Minano <myaguero@msn.com> wrote:
Dear all,
As reported in the monthly LACRALO January call, Alejandro Pisanty has presented the following petition:
"ICANN has initiated a public comment on the Guidelines for Reviews on its activities: "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews":
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en
MOTION: LACRALO must request the Board and the SO/AC leadership to review the procedures to integrate the "Review Teams". The result of said review should be the inclusion of RT members as a matter of law without requiring the approval of the SO/AC leadership as a whole.
RATIONALE: the current system forms a closed system in which it is not possible to include independent opinieons. The process describes how to hire "independent experts" but this refers exclusively to consultants who will be selected in a similar way. The result of this closed cycle were immediate: the "SSRT2" revision or the second DNS security, stability and resiliency review has been put on hold for not achieving progress, which in my opinion is at least partly due to the closed constitution of the working team.
STATEMENT OF INTEREST: I have a detailed knowledge of the process as I was Chair of the Initial SSRT (2010) and had submitted a request to participate in the second team as well, and I also have had discussions with the Board, SSAC and ALAC Chairs, as with other members who are part of those bodies.
I would be grateful to the Secretariat for attaching a copy of this motion to the documents that will be reviewed this afternoon, as the matter structurally affects the decisions made by the CCWG which led the IANA transition".
In this matter, we would like to start a consensus consultation to approve the motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty.
This request for consensus will be made available to the Community for a period of three (03) days counted from Monday, January 29th, 2018 and will end on Thursday, February 1st, 2018, due to the time since the request was made and the importance of the subject.
In the following link you will find the Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79432176
This call for consensus is based on paragraph 12.8 of the LACRALO RoP, which will be considered successful in the absence of significant opposition to it.
Regards,
Humberto Carrasco -LACRALO Chair
Maritza Agüero – LACRALO Secretariat
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
participants (5)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch -
Maritza Y. Aguero Minano -
Niran Beharry