[CPWG] NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps

Tue Jun 11 21:35:52 UTC 2019

I like the idea of the RALO perspective.. each RALO is very different and
has different needs and interests.  It is therefore appropriate to
articulate those as well as the general / collective ALAC views. Im good
with that especially as it offers the views of the grassroots members, that
can side beside those of the high level thinkers that we have within the
CPWG.

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:47 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 Boardâ€™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 Boardâ€™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.Â  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 ICANNâ€™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 forÂ  the
>>    implementation of this recommendation to rebalance the NomCom? And,
>>    what criteriaÂ  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 â€œindependent directorsâ€ . Upon clarification of desire and
>>    definition, determine the number of specific seats for â€œindependent
>>    directorsâ€ .
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Â·Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 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/e3066fd4/attachment-0001.html>