William Drake wrote:
>> -- Draft Proposal for Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Review Teams
>>   http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/affirmation-reviews-draft-proposal-26dec09-en.pdf
> 
> We had concerns with the draft proposal's assertion that only small teams could be effective, given that a) there's plenty of evidence to the contrary in other IG domains, and b) the proposed team composition (8 for accountability and transparency, 6-7 for security and reliability weighted toward the technical community, 7 for consumer/competition, 8 for WHOIS) might not fully reflect the full geographical and sectoral diversity of impacted stakeholders.  In particular, there's some question about having just one or less GNSO rep per, given the differences across and within the two houses.  So we'll raise these points tomorrow.  We may want to consider whether any other NC response is merited.

I note a disconnect between the discussion of different types of
evaluation methods and the discussion of group size.  While the report
professes interest in "non-traditional" participatory or empowering
evaluation, it doesn't seem to take account that those styles might
require representation from a larger pool.  Naturally there's tension
between empowerment/participation and rapid consensus.  It's easier to
reach consensus of 2 than 20, but that doesn't mean the consensus is
"better" when measured against participant and public satisfaction, or
legitimate in the eyes of those requesting it.

Just some thoughts for tomorrow's and continuing discussion.
--Wendy

-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask]
phone: +1.914.374.0613
Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/