[WP1] 6.5.5. Nomcom Recall Procedure - suggestion
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Fri Apr 17 19:59:28 UTC 2015
Hi,
Personally, I am fine with the sitting nomcom doing it.
The reason I wrote it that way is that several people had stated in
conversation that it could not be done by the same nomcom. I therefore
started with that premise, in fact it was that premsie which reminded me
of the IETF example.
As for why people argued it could not be the sitting nomcom, I will let
them comment for themselves if they wish. The possible reason that
occurs to me is that it would not only disrupt their carefully scheduled
work, but that it might cause a perspective change that could also be
disruptive. Also there might be a tendancy to review the recall
petition in the light of available replacement candidates. Having the
sitting nomcom do it would require its members to be people who were
good at compartmentalization.
avri
On 17-Apr-15 12:38, olivier.muron at orange.com wrote:
>
> Avri,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your suggestion. I agree with the petition mechanism.
>
>
>
> I think however that building a new adhoc NomCom is quite complex,
> and, in fact, I dont fully understand the rationale for it:
>
> - for directors appointed by SO or AC, that same organisation
> would decide the director’s removal,
>
> - for directors nominated by the NomCom, one would have to
> create that new adhoc NomCom to decide. Why such a difference? The
> simplest is to keep the same NomCom (BTW NomCom composition is
> partially renewed every year…).
>
>
>
> The comparaison with IETF is interesting but one must keep in mind
> that the selection of their NomCom members is a complex, random
> process (detailed in RFC 3797) while our NomCom members are directly
> selected by SO/AC/Constituencies in a transparent process. That makes
> quite a difference.
>
>
>
> In conclusion, I feel fine with the petition process you are
> proposing, but I would leave the recall decision to the NomCom, with
> the composition it will have when the situation arises,
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Olivier
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :*wp1-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org] *De la part
> de* Steve Crocker
> *Envoyé :* jeudi, avril 16, 2015 23:14
> *À **:*avri at acm.org
> *Cc :* wp1 at icann.org
> *Objet :* Re: [WP1] 6.5.5. Nomcom Recall Procedure - suggestion
>
>
>
> :) Well, although the NomCom is indeed composed of people appointed by
> the SOs and ACs, the composition is quite different from the
> composition of the Board, and I think the dynamics are quite different
> from the likely effect of having SOs and ACs act as members.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Apr 16, 2015, at 5:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I do not think it affects the independence of Board members. It is a
> Nomcom activity, composed of the same mix of members as the appointing
> Nomcom. It is patterned on the IETF Nomcom Recall process in RFC
> 7437, a model that requires only 20 eligible qualified petitioners to
> initiate a Nomcom recall process.
>
> BTW: I would have no problem with requiring a higher threshold of SOAC
> to initiate, but figured that the 3 SOAC requirements was already
> rather more strict than 20 qualified IETF participants.
>
> But what is most important to remember is that is is a properly
> constituted nomcom that makes the decision and it needs to meet a high
> threshold. So if a Nomcom process composed of AC/SO members can pick
> independent Directors, then they should be able to remove them.
>
> Now if you want to disagree with the antecedent of that last sentence
> you might find me in agreement (as I am still a fan of elected
> Directors as in ICANN 1.0), but given that we institutionally trust an
> ACSO constituted Nomcom to appoint independent Directors, an ACSO
> constituted Nomcom should be able to recall them.
>
> avri
>
> On 16-Apr-15 15:00, Steve Crocker wrote:
>
> Doesn’t this move us even further toward giving the SOs and ACs
> control of Board members and thereby reduce, if not eviscerate,
> the independence of board members appointed by the NomCom?
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Apr 16, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Apologies for being so last minute about this.
>
>
> In order to remove an individual director(s) appointed by the
> Nominating Committee, a Nomcom recall process will be added to the
> Bylaws section on Nomcom. The recall process would be initiated
> by a petition by 3 AC/SO, including at least 1 SO and 1 AC. The
> petition must include a description of the case for removal. The
> Recall process would be chaired by an emeritus chair of a previous
> Nominating Committee selected by the ICANN Board. The Recall
> Committee will be made up of appointees from the various AC/SO
> according to the same formula used by the Nominating Committee and
> will use the same processes and procedures. The members of the
> current nominating committee will not be qualified for
> participation. The single focus of the Recall Committee will be
> to review the case for removal presented by the petitioners and
> decision on removal of of Board Member(s) refered to in the AC/SO
> petition. the Board Members(s) under consideration for removal
> will be givin an opportunity to respond to any issues in the
> petition. Decision will be by 3/4 vote of the Recall Committee.
> The Recall Committee will be disbanded after completing its task.
>
>
> avri
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org <mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> WP1 mailing list
>
> WP1 at icann.org <mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org <mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150417/56a70b4e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the WP1
mailing list