IRP-IOT selection/ "vetting" process

Fri Jul 5 09:45:04 EEST 2019

Hi both

Thanks for the correction - I should not have written pdp but more
generally any community involvement with any form of ICANN rulemaking
activity, to encompass both CCWG ACC, PDPs, and any other rulemaking
initiative or activity.

But it seems like it is a first, then. My belief is that it has to do with
the "sensitivity" of the topic, given that IRP panels undertake a form of
judicial review (within the limits of "ICANN law") As any trial lawyer
would say, if you control the procedure, you control the outcome...

There might not be a clear legal ground, but there might be nothing against
it. In the weeds of the bylaws, one can find "legal grounds" for a lot of
things...

Found this thing from WS1 final report:

*"The CCWG-Accountability proposes that the revised IRP provisions be
adopted as Fundamental Bylaws. Implementation of these enhancements will
necessarily require additional detailed work. Detailed rules for the
implementation of the IRP (such as rules of procedure) are to be created by
the ICANN community through a CCWG (assisted by counsel, appropriate
experts, and the Standing Panel when confirmed), and approved by the Board,
such approval not to be unreasonably withheld."*

So the outcome of this has to be approved by 3/4 of the Board and the EC
(bylaws 25.2.b)

Now whats "a CCWG"? Not a defined term as far as I can see, and there has
only been one, the CCWG ACC, whose members were appointed by SO/ACs. Both a
bottom up process (through the whole chartering ordeal; see also "CCWG
Policy Recommendation in the bylaws) as well as top down (since it was NTIA
who "called" for it in the first place) Nowhere in the original CCWG ACC
charter does it say that the Board had anything to say in the membership,
though.

Looking back at the latter from the BAMC:

*The EOIs of the candidates that meet the qualifications will be provided
to the BAMC for evaluation and identification of new members.*

A careful choice of words. The Board is not selecting or vetting anyone
("vetting" is used only in relation to what SO/ACs may decide to do prior
to the BAMC) but "evaluating" and "identifying". Purely administrative work
perhaps? ;)

Besides asking the SO/ACs to deal with the fact that the IRP IOT had run
out of members, I don't see any other role for the BAMC and the Board in
general. But that might not be a shared opinion by the interested parties.
It's worth keeping in mind the recent discussion on how the work of the
community often chases its own tail and ends up going nowhere. That might
be the first glimpse of an "improved" MSH model...

In any case I would be curious to know where they take their authority to
do what they are doing from.

A nice day to all,

Raphael

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 4:54 PM Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
> a very interesting thread. I agree that we shall not confuse PDP with
> accountability processes and I am also not aware of previous instances of
> vetting. However, in general scheme of things, it does remind me of what
> happened in 2015, when CCWG-Accountability came up with the Sole Member
> Model proposal, which was meant to keep ICANN (and in particular, the
> Board) accountable, and the Board simply blocked that proposal -- the very
> Board that was supposed to be kept accountable on the basis of it.
> As to the letter, I would be curious to ask what are the legal grounds
> this vetting process is happening. What in the bylaws or other documents
> warrants it? The procedures are governed by Section 4.3. of the Bylaws. The
> Bylaws say: "This Section 4.3 shall be construed, implemented, and
> administered in a manner consistent with these Purposes of the IRP". So I
> would be keen not only to remind about the purpose of the IRP IOT, but also
> see what kind of legal grounds the Board sees for such a vetting process
> that is in line with the quote from the section 4.3.
> I might be missing something here, so feel free to correct me.
> Cheers,
> Tanya
>
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 22:37, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Raphaël,
>>
>> To avoid confusion, for GNSO PDP groups, board has no say on the
>> composition nor doing any vetting at the formation. GNSO PDP working groups
>> are usually open membership , except for current EPDP team which has
>> limited membership as outlined in the charter and decided by GNSO council
>> and with representatives appointed by  the listed groups in the charter.
>>
>> The IRP IOT is an implementation team for CCWG and so not related to PDP.
>> This board vetting seems a first occurence I think as I personally don' t
>> recall other cases.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 05:11 Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <
>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Starting this as a separate thread as I think it is an important
>>> discussion to have.
>>>
>>> As a relative newcomer, I'm mostly interested in knowing how often has
>>> the Board undertaken such a vetting process for participation in any form
>>> of PDP (taken broadly).
>>>
>>> That an SO/AC chooses its own people is one thing, but here the Board
>>> has, in effect, the last say.
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>> From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>>> Date: Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 3:59 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Call for volunteers IRP-IOT and proposed Council
>>> endorsement process
>>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Rafik
>>>
>>> I have to say I am stunned by the board decision to be involved in
>>> vetting the  applicants for IOT membership. This is the group that is going
>>> to come up with procedures to hold the board accountable. Board decided to
>>> have a say in the selection? This is astonishing. I don't know how the
>>> board doesn't see what is wrong with such involvement.
>>>
>>> If NCSG agrees we need to send a formal letter to the board and remind
>>> them what IOT is for!
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 3:54 PM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> For those interested to volunteer to IRP-IOT please review carefully
>>>> the call here
>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-to-siddiqui-et-al-26jun19-en.pdf
>>>>  [icann.org]
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_sanchez-2Dto-2Dsiddiqui-2Det-2Dal-2D26jun19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=nB8wjB51BCGkGoYf3d1QMu8BvYola3KUSkUARFf64_Q&s=O4k5PeksbH8PKBf9gPIeTNc6uFW4qxu6BXOVz-IIlyM&e=> and
>>>> if you would like to get GNSO council support read the details below.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>
>>>> Dear Council Members, SG/C Chairs,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As you may be aware, the ICANN Board Accountability Mechanisms
>>>> Committee (BAMC) recently launched a call for volunteers to recompose the
>>>> Independent Review Process (IRP) Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (see
>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-to-siddiqui-et-al-26jun19-en.pdf
>>>>  [icann.org]
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_sanchez-2Dto-2Dsiddiqui-2Det-2Dal-2D26jun19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=nB8wjB51BCGkGoYf3d1QMu8BvYola3KUSkUARFf64_Q&s=O4k5PeksbH8PKBf9gPIeTNc6uFW4qxu6BXOVz-IIlyM&e=>
>>>> ) . The letter also notes that ‘if any SO/AC wishes to vet candidates
>>>> through its own candidate selection process, the BAMC welcomes that work,
>>>> diligence, and indication of support when passing the candidate further
>>>> into the process’.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As during recent discussions, Council members as well as GNSO community
>>>> members have highlighted the importance of this process and the need for
>>>> the GNSO to contribute candidates with expertise to this process, Council
>>>> leadership would like to propose the following steps:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    1. Any candidates interested in GNSO Council endorsement should
>>>>    send their Expressions of Interest describing how his or her experience
>>>>    aligns with the skills identified, as well as a commitment to the estimated
>>>>    time demands to gnso-secs at icann.org by Friday 12 July 2019.
>>>>    2. Council leadership will evaluate the applications against the
>>>>    skills and experience outlined in the call for volunteers (see also below).
>>>>    3. Council leadership will share with the Council the proposed
>>>>    candidates for GNSO Council endorsement by 17 July 2019 at the latest.
>>>>    4. Council to consider proposed candidates for endorsement during
>>>>    18 July 2019 GNSO Council meeting.
>>>>    5. GNSO Secretariat to submit EOIs of endorsed candidates by 31
>>>>    July 2019 at the latest.
>>>>    6. All the EOIs of the candidates that meet the qualifications will
>>>>    be provided to the BAMC for evaluation and identification of new members.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you have any questions or concerns about this proposed process,
>>>> please let us know as soon as possible. We appreciate that the timeline is
>>>> short, but we hope this will not prevent you from encouraging members who
>>>> have the required skills and experience from applying. To be clear, nothing
>>>> prevents those not seeking GNSO Council endorsement from submitting their
>>>> applications directly to the BAMC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pam Little and Rafik Dammak, Vice Chairs, GNSO Council
>>>>
>>>> On behalf of GNSO Council Leadership
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From
>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-to-siddiqui-et-al-26jun19-en.pdf
>>>> [icann.org]
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_sanchez-2Dto-2Dsiddiqui-2Det-2Dal-2D26jun19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=nB8wjB51BCGkGoYf3d1QMu8BvYola3KUSkUARFf64_Q&s=O4k5PeksbH8PKBf9gPIeTNc6uFW4qxu6BXOVz-IIlyM&e=>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Skills and Experience Required *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The IOT has very important work remaining, including the finalization
>>>> of a set of Updated Supplementary Procedures that will define the conduct
>>>> of IRPs and assure that the purposes of the IRP are upheld. These
>>>> Procedures must also align with principles of international arbitration. As
>>>> a result, those members of our community that you identify and encourage to
>>>> join the IOT, should have the necessary legal or judicial skills and
>>>> experience in disputes such as IRPs, arbitrations, or other alternate
>>>> dispute resolution processes. Specific familiarity with ICANN’s
>>>> accountability mechanisms is another important skill that we hope to see
>>>> amongst new members. No single candidate must bring all of this experience,
>>>> but as we look at the IOT as a whole, we are striving for a variety of
>>>> experiences that, taken together, make the IOT well-suited to finalize a
>>>> set of procedures to conduct IRP proceedings. IOT members must also have
>>>> the time and availability to attend at least a one hour call each week to
>>>> participate on IOT telephonic meetings, as well as sufficient availability
>>>> to contribute to the work online.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190705/4f0ccc2e/attachment.htm>