Hi Alejandro, Just for clarity, what aspects of the current system characterise it as 'too closed? Sent from Samsung Focus <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" <apisan@unam.mx> </div><div>Date: 1/29/18 9:19 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, "Maritza Y. Aguero Minano" <myaguero@msn.com> </div><div>Cc: LACRALO discussion list <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews" </div><div> </div>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