[governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review

[Danny Younger]

Veni,

I am one of the many that went through the DNSO Review
process.  Over 100 active participants in the General
Assembly engaged themselves in an intensive
three-month-long effort to evaluate the DNSO and to
offer a set of recommendations (which included a
recommendation to the Board to establish a
constituency for individuals). 

The ICANN Board dismissed all of the recommendations,
structurally eliminated the General Assembly while
tossing out the at-large directors, and made only one
minor change to the body that was to become the GNSO
-- they added a few Nominating Committee members to
the mix and enhanced the voting power of the supplier
segment to the detriment of the user community.  

Bottom-up input was totally ignored by a Board that
lacks the ability to deal with any criticism.  

Today, instead of a bottom-up community-wide effort to
review a Supporting Organization (which might indeed
yield a community-backed recommendation to dissolve
the GNSO), we will instead be offered the work-product
of a single analyst that will  assuredly toe the party
line of those that are paying his fees.

You can defend your choice to rely upon such a
consultant to your heart's content, and you can argue
that six days is sufficient notice to secure the
employment of a consultant, but I will continue to
believe that by taking the evaluation out of the hands
of the people that constitute the Supporting
Organization itself, you are pre-ordaining the type of
conclusion that you will inevitably be receiving.

If you really want constructive work to be
accomplished, why don't you start by putting together
a Board-level plan to restore at-Large directors to
the Board.   It's something that is capable of being
done and it remains something that would serve the
interests of the broader Internet community.  

You had an earlier proposal to establish an At-Large
Supporting Organization (the ALSO) that was the result
of a well-funded two-year long study.  If you (I'm
referring to the Board) don't like the concept of
direct global elections, then offer us an indirect
election alternative, perhaps involving certified
at-large structures in a process to elect half of the
Board... 

...but don't preach to me about being constructive
while you and your peers on the Board continue to deny
representative rights to us.  We've done our bit for
ICANN; what has the Board done for us?


--- Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:


---------------------------------
Danny, 

I think you are not right. 
Do I need to tell you arguments, or you will trust my
statement the sameway you want us to trust yours,
which is also without arguments?

If someone (incl. from the governance caucus) wants to
participate andbecome part of the solutions, please do
so. If they don't, then they canstay part of the
problem, or part of the landscape. 
It's very easy to criticize any opinion, it's much
more difficult toactually try to make a difference. 
For example, if the term was 30 days, people could
have argued, that it'stoo long, and ICANN is delaying
the review, until it's not needed.

I can rephrase my answer in accordance with what you
said, but I thinkit's not needed. Now, can we try to
be more constructice, and somehowstart to deal with
serious issues seriuosly?

Veni

At 08:05 17-12-05  -0800, Danny Younger wrote:
Robert,

If ICANN was serious about conducting a proper search
for a suitable candidate for this job, they wouldn't
have limited a response time to six days from the
announcement date.  

ICANN Staff has obviously already pre-selected a
certain candidate, knowing that they'll get
pre-determined conclusions reflected in the report
that will be generated.

The report will be just as much of a whitewash as was
the independant consultant review of the GNSO Council.

It's a rigged process from start to finish.


--- Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org>
wrote:

> Of interest to the folks following and involved in
> ICANN....
> 
> 
> Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for
> GNSO Review
>
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14dec05.htm
> 
> 
1. Introduction

1.1. This document should be read in conjunction with
the GNSOReview – Background Information document
(found
athttp://www.icann.org/gnso/review-tor-background-04nov05.htm).
Readtogether, the two documents provide the materials
necessary to considerthe GNSO Review Terms of
Reference (GNSO ToR) which will becompleted in early
2006. The documents reflect detailed
consultationbetween ICANN Staff, the GNSO Council and
between the GNSO Council andindividual members of the
ICANN Board.

1.2. ICANN now seeks to appoint an independent
consultant to undertakethe Review. The information
outlined below illustrates the scope of thework and
the selection criteria for evaluators.

2. Objectives

2.1. The review (among other actions) is designed to
lead toimprovements to one of the key policy
development supportingorganisations within the ICANN
community. The ICANN Board requested areview of the
GNSO in compliance with the ICANN Bylaws and resolved
atits annual general meeting in Vancouver, Canada to
formally initiate thereview.

2.2. The review is due to begin in early February 2006
and should becompleted by early Q2 2006. A full
project timeline will be developed,but it is
anticipated that a key milestone will include the
presentationof a draft report at the Wellington, New
Zealand meeting in March2006.

2.3. The evaluation of the GNSO is expected to include
face-to-faceinterviews, online surveys and desk
research using information providedby the GNSO
constituencies. The successful candidate is welcome
tosuggest additional forms of soliciting the
information. ICANN willprovide to the evaluation team
baseline statistics that have beenrequested of each of
the GNSO constituency chairs. ICANN will alsoprovide
background documentation and reports and access to a
range ofhistorical data.

2.4. Evaluators are expected to have detailed
knowledge of or similarexperience with policy making
in an online environment, most particularlyin relation
to Internet governance. 

3. Tender Scope and Conditions 

3.1. Given the GNSO Review Terms of Reference found
below andresponding specifically to the requests for
further information,applicants should provide:

3.1.1. Statement of Suitability. The Statement of
Suitability mustinclude a detailed outline of the
applicant’s ability to perform the workshowing past
consultancies, research and publications. 

3.1.2. Work Approach. The Work Approach needs to
detail the way in whichthe applicant would respond to
the Terms of Reference; provide detailsabout specific
skills with interview techniques, data gathering
andreport writing. Successful candidate will be
required to communicatethrough email, conference
calls, and video conference over IP. 

3.1.3. Description of Final Product. Describe,
prospectively, the formand organization of a final
report. The report should be suitable forelectronic
transmission, i.e., limited file size and widely used
format.

3.1.4. Team Curriculum Vitae. The response must
include Curriculum Vitaefor the whole team showing
each individual’s suitability for the proposedwork. 

3.1.5. ICANN Contract Compliance: Applicants should
warrant that they arewilling to operate under a
standard non-disclosure agreement. 

3.1.6. The proposal should include a work schedule
including keymilestone dates and a statement of fees.

3.2. Interested applicants should submit preliminary
expressions ofinterest by email to Kurt Pritz, Vice
President, Business Operations (kurt.pritz at icann.org),
and Dr. Liz Williams, Senior Policy
Counselor(liz.williams at icann.org) by Tuesday 20
December 2005. 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance