[CPWG] Brief responses for consideration | Re: Reminder: ACTION/CPWG - NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps
Justine Chew
justine.chew at gmail.com
Wed Jun 5 09:54:15 UTC 2019
All,
At the last CPWG call, I (sort of) offered to review this NomComRIWG call
for 'process-oriented' feedback.
I have posted for consideration, suggested brief responses to the same on
the Google Doc created by Evin.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1asb5lFc6XXy3FSI1h9fSerRB3fqz0AamKepiAIebB5A/edit?usp=sharing
I see only 6 (not 7) recommendations which NomComRIWG Leadership suggested
as needing feedback in their email to Maureen. I'm also inclined towards
not needing to provide specific process-oriented feedback to the remaining
21 recommendations.
Intro texts are meant to be informative and to be edited by staff as needed
later on.
Thanks,
Justine Chew
-----
On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 18:42, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> This is a reminder to please provide comments on the Google Doc
> regarding NomCom Review planned implementation steps:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1asb5lFc6XXy3FSI1h9fSerRB3fqz0AamKepiAIebB5A/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Feedback is requested by 10 June.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Evin
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Evin Erdogdu
> *Sent:* Friday, May 17, 2019 2:23 PM
> *To:* Maureen Hilyard; CPWG
> *Cc:* ICANN At-Large Staff
> *Subject:* ACTION/CPWG - NomCom Review: Feedback on planned
> implementation steps
>
>
> Dear CPWG Members,
>
>
> As per the AI from the 15 May CPWG call
> <https://community.icann.org/x/5pGGBg>, please find a Google Doc for
> community discussion/comment regarding feedback on the NomCom Review
> planned Implementation steps:
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1asb5lFc6XXy3FSI1h9fSerRB3fqz0AamKepiAIebB5A/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Evin
> ------------------------------
> *From:* registration-issues-wg <
> registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of
> Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2019 6:59 PM
> *To:* CPWG
> *Subject:* [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] Fwd: NomCom Review: Feedback
> on planned implementation steps
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Something else for us to work on before 10 June. Perhaps we could get a
> small subgroup to work on the 7 questions the Review Team recommends we
> concentrate on and bring their report back to the CPWG for discussion. Any
> volunteers?
>
> M
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez at icann.org>
> Date: Tue, 14 May 2019, 4:39 AM
> Subject: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps
> To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> Cc: Tom Barrett <tbarrett at encirca.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <
> langdonorr at gmail.com>, Zahid Jamil-IG (internet at jamilandjamil.com) <
> internet at jamilandjamil.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann at icann.org>,
> ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
>
>
> Dear Maureen,
>
>
>
> We are contacting you in the capacity of Chair and Vice-Chairs of the
> NomCom Review Implementation Working Group (NomComRIWG). Following the
> ICANN Board’s acceptance [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D14-2Den-232.f&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=9NKcAN6m7KRvkGN0GLBI9-zmm5SJc7qTs3VYR7qLXO8&s=QV-xPrzU_wX3_Nhs1qR6mZ4AoXW8Oorpwj35uOY8wTo&e=>
> of the Final Report [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_nomcom-2Dreview-2Dfinal-2D05jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=9NKcAN6m7KRvkGN0GLBI9-zmm5SJc7qTs3VYR7qLXO8&s=MPjfAxJEdBF-EL74Y3Up7ADnPVWRfo65mvwv7XtMevY&e=>
> and the Feasibility Assessment and Initial Implementation Plan [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_nomcom2-2Dipt-2Dreview-2Dfaiip-2D14dec18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=9NKcAN6m7KRvkGN0GLBI9-zmm5SJc7qTs3VYR7qLXO8&s=4nhBiDaUTcp8574HEr1-xxfudhb3m8aDQs8gU9vbp6o&e=>,
> we have been tasked to oversee the implementation of the twenty-seven (27)
> recommendations issued by the independent examiner.
>
>
>
> Before implementation can begin, the Board has asked us to draft a
> Detailed Implementation Plan, due to be submitted to the Board’s
> Organizational Effectiveness Committee no later than 14 September 2019.
>
>
>
> While the NomComRIWG has the Board-mandated responsibility to plan the
> implementation of the twenty-seven recommendations, we would welcome any
> and all feedback either as a single document from the ALAC or from
> individual members of the ALAC. All feedback will inform our drafting of
> the Detailed Implementation Plan. We understand that you or the ALAC may
> not have the time to respond to all 27 recommendations, so we have
> identified seven where your input would be most helpful.
>
>
>
> Please, limit your response to the process you suggest we follow for each
> implementation rather than advocating for any specific outcome of the
> recommendation.
>
>
>
> *We kindly ask you to provide us with your feedback no later than 10 June
> 2019*. If you cannot respond by that time, but would like to provide
> input, please, let us know at your earliest convenience by when we can
> expect your feedback.
>
>
>
> If you have any questions or concerns, either about the list of questions,
> or about any other aspect of the NomCom Review implementation, please, do
> not hesitate to reach out to us or any of ICANN’s support staff at any
> time.
>
>
>
> Many thanks and best wishes,
>
>
>
> Tom Barrett, Chair NomComRIWG
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG
>
> Zahid Jamal, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG
>
>
>
>
>
> Cc: ALAC, ASO AC, ccNSO Council, GAC, GNSO Council, RSSAC, SSAC, NCSG,
> RrSG, RySG, BC, IPC, ISPCP, NCUC, NPOC, AFRALO, APRALO, EURALO, LACRALO,
> NARALO.
>
>
>
> 1. *Recommendation 10*: Representation on the NomCom should be
> re-balanced immediately and then be reviewed every five years.
>
>
>
> - What process, based on which principles, would you suggest for the
> implementation of this recommendation to rebalance the NomCom? And,
> what criteria should the overall allocation of all NomCom seats among the
> SO/ACs be based on?
>
>
>
> 1. *Recommendation 14*: Formalize communication between the NomCom and
> the Board, SOs/ACs, and the PTI Board in order to understand needed
> competencies and experience.
>
>
>
> - What process would you suggest to formalize the communication of the
> needed competencies and experiences of NomCom appointees to your SO/AC?
>
>
>
> 1. *Recommendation 16*: Implement and codify a system for providing
> feedback to the NomCom regarding the contributions and participation of
> members up for re-appointment by the NomCom (i.e. for the Board, PTI, GNSO,
> ALAC and ccNSO)
>
>
>
> - What process would you suggest to improve feedback to the NomCom
> regarding the contribution and participation of NomCom-appointees members that
> wish to apply for re-appointment by the NomCom?
>
>
>
> 1. *Recommendation 24*: An empowered body of current and former NomCom
> members should be formed to ensure greater continuity across NomComs, and
> in particular, to recommend and assist in implementing improvements to
> NomCom operations.
>
>
>
> - What process do you suggest should be put in place to help ensure
> cross-community consensus on developing the Charter and formation of this
> body? The Charter would address issues such as membership, term-limits,
> number and allocation of seats.
>
>
>
> 1. *Recommendation 25*: Improve NomCom selection decisions by
> assessing the performance and needs of all bodies receiving NomCom
> appointees.
>
>
>
> - What process would you suggest for your organization to inform and
> improve future NomCom appointments?
>
>
>
> 1. *Recommendation 27*: Provide clarity on desire for and definition
> of “independent directors”. Upon clarification of desire and definition,
> determine the number of specific seats for “independent directors”.
>
>
>
> · What are your suggestions regarding the process of implementing
> of this recommendation?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190605/2f0eabae/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list