[bc-gnso] FW: 360 proposal/comments from Marilyn Cade/re CEO succession
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Wed Nov 16 01:03:49 UTC 2011
Posting to the BC list:
During the Public Session on CEO Succession in ICANN Dakar, I made a statement at the microphone regarding the need for community input on the criteria for the next CEO/President, and for ongoing feedback on performance of the CEO. I did not speak as chair of the BC.
My submission to the public comment email is attached. It includes comments on the PowerPoint presented by the CEO Succession SubCommittee, regarding my personal views on priorities, and a detailed proposal to expand on the proposal I made at the microphone, calling for stakeholder support and input.
While I made this proposal in my individual capacity, it has implications for the BC, as it called for the Chair of the various constituencies/SGs/ACs and other chairs to act as an input and feedback mechanism to the board Subcommittee.
There seems to be some receptivity to this concept, from my discussions with others, including Board members, but it is unclear how or whether it will be acted on by the Board Sub committee. Should it become a reality, I will immediately advise the BC members.
From: marilynscade at hotmail.com
To: ceosearch2012 at icann.org
Subject: 360proposal/comments from Marilyn Cade/re CEO Succession
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:35:59 -0500
Dear Board Members of the CEO Search/Selection Process
During the ICANN Dakar public session on this topic, I made
a comment about the need for Stakeholder support and input to support this
Committee, both in the short term, and long term. I am the Chair of the BC at ICANN, but I am speaking as an individual in my submission, and in the proposal I made.
As I made a detailed proposal to this group, I attach a more detailed proposal which I have
also sent it to the chairs and representatives of the groups
that were named in the proposed “360 Group”. This is not a proposal by a group, but a proposal that deserves consideration from an individual.
My comments below respond to your PowerPoint about what
matters and what priority should be assigned to different characteristics.
First, though, I will repeat a comment that I made, and
others made, to congratulate you for your openness and interest in
understanding the perspectives of the Stakeholders who actually are basic and
the basis for ICANN’s actual legitimacy.
Today, I am privileged to chair the Business
Constituency at ICANN. However, my comments in this submission are as an
individual, with a long history of pre-ICANN, and present-ICANN, and as an
individual who is highly involved in the Internet eco system’s debates about
who should govern the global Internet, which includes, but is not limited to
ICANN’s role and functions.
Thank you for the ‘outline’ you presented via your
I will respond on a page by page basis, as well as with a summary
I am available for any clarifications, at marilynscade at hotmail.com. I realize
that many prefer to have their identities and their contact details obscured.
In my case, I believe strongly, that anonymous contributions are not actually
appropriate in a discussion of this nature. Please consider my comments publicly available.
Page 5: OBTAINING INPUT TO CRITERIA
I disagree with the proposed commitment of this Committee
that they will accept anonymous input, and not publish submissions. The PSE, which I served on for three
years, finally agreed that all submissions must be identified, and
identifiable. ICANN cannot accept
Explanation: ICANN has a threshold of Accountability and
Recommendation: Maintain a log of submissions. Encourage
speakers/submitters to accept their own accountability. Publish a list of
contributors, and if you must, publish the contributions separately.
UPDATE TO YOUR
PREVIOUS STATEMENT: REQUIRE THAT ALL WHO SUMMIT COMMENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AND
Rationale: How accountable is ICANN, if we do not express with
accountability, our views, and
with a full expectation that those contributions are respected, and accepted.
The PSC considered, and rejected anonymity in submissions. I
urge you to rise to that standard. If there is a justifiable role of full anonymity for a
submission in this ICANN comment, I would be significantly surprised. If so,
then ICANN can accept such a submission sent to the General Counsel.
Input accepted through November 15, 2011.
Comment: This group needs to remain open for an extended
period – perhaps January 10, to accept comments. Many of the ICANN community are digging out from work delayed
by being at ICANN; digesting the implications of many policy and other
activities; and dealing with holidays in November/December, around the world. The
vast community of ICANN Stakeholders can only devote small amounts of time to
ICANN, as much as they would prefer otherwise.
The community has a comprehensive understanding of this
It may bear more discussion, though, about whether the
senior staff, General Counsel, and Board really do fully understand it as the
community personifies it today. As
someone who helped to catalyze ICANN, among many others, this discussion would
benefit from more ‘light’ and engagement, including with the founders.
Slides on page 7- 17
My comments are a summary about the content of these slides.
First, as someone who knows and supports ICANN globally, I
have a view. However, I think that my comments will support the Committee best,
if I focus on the general considerations of global business.
CEO Search Criteria:
and Leadership Skills
Skills and Values
Many of the technical advisors, and some Board members, and
members of the community think a deep understanding of the DNS and more
importantly, the Internet and the implications of the role of ICANN in the
global Internet qualify Board members.
A basic understanding, and the ability to obtain
sophisticated understanding is required. One challenge I see is that the Board
at present is dependent on some experts within the Board, and lacks access to
truly independent experts, as advisors.
It is true that a factual understanding of what we do, and
why we do it, and our commitments technologically, are critical aspects for an
ICANN Board Member.
Can they learn this, and can they accept informed, neutral
advice? I would say, yes, with the caveat that ICANN will need to fund
briefings, and informational sessions.
Technical : agree with the Institutional Knowledge items.
This list is incomplete, but a good start. It should include
IGF, AU, CITEL
Community: International Awareness
This PP is not sophisticated in its conceptualization of
But is a good start.
The model of bottom up, consensus based policy development must
include the issues of SSR, which
are omitted from this slide. In this slide, ICANN proposes to prioritize IPR,
privacy, freedom of speech, but omits its core value of SSR. ICANN has a core
commitment to SSR, and the
fundamental commitment to security, stability, and resilisency of the
Internet’s unique identifers, and their impact on the global Internet,
The topics seem appropriate, but as we have learned from
past experience, applicants external to ICANN do not easily understand our
Many resources can be ‘procured’.
To date, ICANN and its present CEO/President has a challenging record of how
consultants to the CEO have integrated into support of ICANN. Past experiences are not necessarily
useful for how a future CEO, with different support and advice, utilizes
experts and resources. There needs
to be limits on how much flexibility, without Board approval exists to add
resources, staff, and advisors.
Most organizations have strict limits on discretionary funds, and
discretionary hiring’s, without organizational approvals. It appears that the recent
experiences have exceeded the
A CEO with private advisors that aren’t part of ICANN’s
accountability system aren’t
representative of an open, transparent ICANN.
When outside hires are recruited without a valid
understanding of the organization and its internal and external challenges,
they may support their hiring official, but fail to meet the expectations of
the community. This seems to be a
current and expensive situation for ICANN. Measuring whether a new
CEO/President should be allowed to have external advisors should be assessed
against a validated criteria.
Personal Skills and
These skills are native requirements for a CEO/President.
The CEO must understand ICANN vis –a vis other
organizations. BUT, fundamentally,
understand and support ICANN and its core mission.
Some of these criteria must come from the community, and the
ability to understand and work with the community. No one individual will process all of these attributes.
To me, and I believe to the business community, the key
value for a CEO/President is the ability to understand and reflect a commitment
to the core value of ICANN.
Many other skills can be procured.
Existing in a larger eco system, as first defined by the
business leadership, will increasingly be a requirement. The business community
will support ICANN, and its new leadership in this key area.
A key priority of aligning with Core Values is of course, a
It is not actually clear that ICANN requires ‘humility’ for
itself, or its CEO, although that is interesting to consider. It might suggest that we misunderstood the community in a recruitment in the past.
message is that a CEO should not seek personal visibility, but act in support
of the organization’s goals and agenda, in public events. In addition, acting in the public
interest, however, deserves increased attention to the ICANN community.
It may be time for an internally focused CEO, that helps to
strengthen and build the organization from within, and that seeks to support
and strengthen how the various organizations that comprise ICANN effect and influence
the future of the global Internet, and ICANN’s leadership within that larger
That dialogue remains yet to come, with the process
established by this board Committee.
Comments of Marilyn Cademarilynscade at hotmail.com+ 1 202 252 6787
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 360 Input into CEO Succession and ongoing Feedback.docx
Size: 154144 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Bc-gnso