[CPWG] NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps

[Justine Chew]

Great. Many thanks, Olivier.

Regards,

Justine
-----

On Tue, 11 Jun 2019, 21:59 Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> Dear Maureen and Justine,
>
> I am writing to you to let you know of EURALO's response to the questions
> asked. We were contacted directly by NomCom Review staff. Having reviewed
> the ALAC's proposed response, I note that our answers are broadly aligned.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps
> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:48:10 +0200
> From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> <ocl at gih.com>
> To: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez at icann.org>
> <jean-baptiste.deroulez at icann.org>
> CC: Tom Barrett <tbarrett at encirca.com> <tbarrett at encirca.com>, Cheryl
> Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com> <langdonorr at gmail.com>, Zahid Jamil-IG
> (internet at jamilandjamil.com) <internet at jamilandjamil.com>
> <internet at jamilandjamil.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann at icann.org>
> <lars.hoffmann at icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
> <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
>
> Dear Jean-Baptiste,
>
> thank you for reaching out to EURALO. Please be so kind to find the EURALO
> input to this consultation with responses interspersed in your text below,
> written in BLUE.
> This input is not meant to contradict the ALAC input on the matter, as
> EURALO will support the ALAC's input. Although this input was prepared
> independently of the ALAC's input, it should be taken as complementary to
> the ALAC's advice.
> If you have any question about any part of EURALO's response, please do
> not hesitate to contact me.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
> EURALO Chair
>
>
> On 14/05/2019 16:51, Jean-Baptiste Deroulez wrote:
>
> Dear Olivier,
>
> Â
>
> 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
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-14-en#2.f>
> of the Final Report
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.pdf>
> and the Feasibility Assessment and Initial Implementation Plan
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom2-ipt-review-faiip-14dec18-en.pdf>,
> we have been tasked to oversee the implementation of the twenty-seven (27)
> recommendations issued by the independent examiner.
>
> Â
>
> 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.
>
> Â
>
> 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 EURALO or from
> individual members of the EURALO. All feedback will inform our drafting of
> the Detailed Implementation Plan.  We understand that you or the EURALO
> may not have the time to respond to all 27 recommendations, so we have
> identified seven where your input would be most helpful.
>
> Â
>
> Please, limit your response to the process you suggest we follow for each
> implementation rather than advocating for any specific outcome of the
> recommendation.
>
> Â
>
> *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.
>
> Â
>
> 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.
>
> Â
>
> Many thanks and best wishes,
>
> Â
>
> Tom Barrett, Chair NomComRIWG
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG
>
> Zahid Jamal, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG
>
> Â
>
> Â
>
> Cc: ALAC, ASO AC, ccNSO Council, GAC, GNSO Council, RSSAC, SSAC, NCSG,
> RrSG, RySG, BC, IPC, ISPCP, NCUC, NPOC, AFRALO, APRALO, EURALO, LACRALO,
> NARALO.
>
> Â
>
>    1. *Recommendation 10*: Representation on the NomCom should be
>    re-balanced immediately and then be reviewed every five years.
>
> Â
>
>    - 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?
>
>
> This really depends on the actual "balancing". The recommendation suggests
> the creation of a working group that would be tasked with undertaking an
> assessment and ultimately making recommendations for the actual
> re-balancing.
> The IPT suggests (2) rebalancing could be rotational. The difference in
> balancing year on year will make this very complicated as the group might
> not include the same balance of stakeholders and this is likely to affect
> continuity. IPT suggestion (3) mentions the growth and expansion of SO/ACs
> - we believe that one has to be careful that gaming the system will not be
> used to multiply constituencies thus bringing more weight to the NomCom
> from a particular group of constituencies. At this moment in time, short of
> supporting a working group to take a deeper look at the issue and to make
> recommendations, we can only support the process that is currently
> suggested.
>
>
>    -
>
> Â
>
>    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.
>
> Â
>
>    - What process would you suggest to formalize the communication of the
>    needed competencies and experiences of NomCom appointees to your SO/AC?
>
>
> This issue is not solely caused by lack of formalised communication. The
> Nominating Committee meets with SOs and ACs asking what skills are
> currently needed in their communities. But the way the question is asked at
> present appears like asking a resident what size of pipe they would like
> installed inside their house: they would have no idea. A questionnaire
> asking the right questions, addressing specific topics, could provide much
> more insights as to skill gaps in SOs, ACs and the ICANN Board, than an
> open question "what type of profile do you need?"
> It would also be helpful if the NomCom itself would publish its own
> perception of perceived gaps in skill-sets and competencies on the Board,
> as this can serve as a good starting point for discussions with the
> community.
>
>
>    -
>
> Â
>
>    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)
>
> Â
>
>    - 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?
>
>
> The NomCom should be provided with full feedback from the body into which
> it appointed a candidate, about that candidate's performance. This feedback
> should be confidential to the NomCom so as to allow for a candid assessment
> of that person's performance. Optionally, a NomCom appointing a candidate
> to a position could store a rationale of specific points/characteristics
> that resonated to appoint this candidate and this rationale could be made
> available to a later NomCom that would have to evaluate whether the
> expectations of that prior NomCom were fulfilled regarding that candidate.
> This additional information could help with the NomCom's decision to
> re-appoint a candidate.
>
>
>    -
>
> Â
>
>    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.
>
> Â
>
>    - 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.
>
>
> This "empowered body" should be a cross community group composed of
> members of the community appointed by their respective component
> organisation, in the same manner as NomCom participants. Its membership
> should be made up of the current NomCom chair plus a past NomCom Chair, as
> well as past NomCom members across the community. The function of this
> group should be to focus purely on procedural matters and should not
> influence NomCom selections. Its primary function should be to make
> recommendations for ICANN component organisations to act on. It should also
> receive instructions from component organisations to implement
> recommendations. In no way should it both recommend and implement without
> the express agreement from NomCom component organisations.
>
>
>
>
>    -
>
> Â
>
>    1. *Recommendation 25*: Improve NomCom selection decisions by
>    assessing the performance and needs of all bodies receiving NomCom
>    appointees.
>
> Â
>
>    - What process would you suggest for your organization to inform and
>    improve future NomCom appointments?
>
>
> Prior to searching for candidates, a questionnaire asking the right
> questions, addressing specific topics, could provide much more insights as
> to skill gaps in SOs, ACs and the ICANN Board than an open question "what
> type of profile do you need?"
> The SO/AC should also provide candid feedback to the NomCom about a
> candidate's past performance. This, again, could also be done via a
> questionnaire to the Chair of the body that the returning candidate has
> been appointed to. Both questionnaires could be linked and compared so as
> to find out of the original skills gap was competently fulfilled.
> Ultimately a form of uniform feedback process, either through a specific
> feedback form asking pertinent questions, or through a uniform 360 peer
> review process used across all of ICANN, would help with comparing
> performance of appointed candidates.
>
>
>    -
>
> Â
>
>    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†.
>
> Â
>
> ·         What are your suggestions regarding the process of
> implementing of this recommendation?
>
> Â
>
>
> The notion of "independent directors" is misguided.
> Whilst the NomCom selected directors can be part of the ICANN community,
> all NomCom selected directors should be, as much as possible, unrelated to
> the Domain Name industry. They should be completely un-conflicted for all
> decisions of the ICANN Board and should not derive a direct income from the
> domain name business. This is needed mainly to balance out ICANN Board
> members appointed by SOs and ACs that are more likely to be conflicted.
> Declaring a conflict of interest is not enough in this case.
>
> ---- end of contribution ---
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190611/0406c832/attachment-0001.html>