<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [governance] Review Panels</title></head><body>
<div>Danny,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Thank you very much for introducing factors of technical
competence and knowledge into this discussion.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I suspect that your cynicism is born from years of personal
experience, but I would not be so quick to direct it toward a
situation which does represent a changing environment characterized by
a new set of relationships, and which deserves a chance to
succeed.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>George</div>
<div><br></div>
<div
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<span
></span>~~~</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Bertrand,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>There is more to this equation than
diversity, balance, and representativeness; these review panels will
require individuals with extensive knowledge regarding the particulars
of the areas under review (which is why independent experts are cited
as part of the necessary review team mix).</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
The teams will include:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>the Chair of the GAC</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>the CEO of ICANN</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>representatives of the Root Server
System Advisory Committee</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>representatives of the Security and
Stability Advisory Committee</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>representatives of the At-Large
Advisory Committee</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>representatives of the Generic Names
Supporting Organization</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>representatives of the Address
Supporting Organization</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>representatives of the Country Code
Names Supporting Organization</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>independent experts (likely drawn from
either the Technical Liason Group, the IETF, the IAB, or from the pool
of volunteer community members)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>and in the accountability/transparency
review team, these members will be joined by the Assistant Secretary
for Communications and Information of the DOC,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The current arrangement calls for the
composition of the review team to be agreed jointly by the Chair
of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the CEO of
ICANN.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Like all comparable ICANN processes,
there will likely be a call for volunteers (similar to the recent call
for NSCG placeholder councilors). The ICANN Board will then
privately settle upon whomever best promotes the ICANN interest
(likely those that have never been critics) and will then advance
those names to the Chair of the GAC.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I fully expect these reviews to be as
much of a whitewash as all earlier ICANN self-review efforts.
Perhaps you will recall the earlier commissioned review of
transparency and accountability provided in the One World Trust report
-- we were told that ICANN is a model of transparency with robust
accountability mechanisms... and yet we all know the
reality.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Don't waste your energy on this project.
The deck will be stacked from day one.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>best regards,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Danny Younger</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
--- On<b> Thu, 10/15/09, Bertrand de La Chapelle<i>
<bdelachapelle@gmail.com></i></b> wrote:<br>
<blockquote><br>
From: Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@gmail.com><br>
Subject: [governance] Review Panels<br>
To: governance@lists..cpsr.org, "Anriette Esterhuysen"
<anriette@apc.org><br>
Date: Thursday, October 15, 2009, 4:33 AM<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>Dear all,<br>
<br>
Could this list also address Anriette's concrete second question ?
What do you think the review process should be ? Fundamentally, the
community is facing a now recurring problem (cf. WGIG, MAG,...) : how
to compose a multi-stakeholder group for a given task, so that it is
sufficiently diverse, balanced and representative of the variety of
viewpoints ?<br>
<br>
In addition, what do you tink the timing is ?<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Bertrand<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <<a
href="http://us.mc1101.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=anriette@apc.org"
>anriette@apc.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote>snip<br>
<br>
Second question is about the submissions on the review panels. What
is<br>
the process likely to be?<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
<br>
--<br>
____________________<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special
Envoy for the Information Society<br>
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French
Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs<br>
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes"
Antoine de Saint Exupéry</blockquote>
<blockquote>("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting
humans")</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>