From vanda at uol.com.br Tue Dec 1 20:16:50 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:16:50 -0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] NomCom, new draft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014b01ca72c3$3cd79130$b686b390$@com.br> Hi all. The whole statement looks good. Answering Adams question: We may use the same words we used in Board review doc for the removal/replacement Best Vanda Scartezini NEXTi_v1.jpg tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 mob:+ 55 11 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: icann-future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:icann-future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 9:36 AM To: icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [Icann-future-wg] NomCom, new draft Please see attached. Made some changes to the NA RALO statement. Comments? Particularly, is the part on removal/replacement consistent with earlier ALAC statements? Thanks, Adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20091201/13cef4b8/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1570 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20091201/13cef4b8/attachment.jpe From vanda at uol.com.br Tue Dec 1 20:19:57 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:19:57 -0200 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] At-Large/ALAC comments on Draft Final Report of the ICANN Board Review Working Group In-Reply-To: <015701ca71d1$34b34d70$9e19e850$@bachollet@isoc.fr> References: <4B0FDDE7.5070307@icann.org> <015701ca71d1$34b34d70$9e19e850$@bachollet@isoc.fr> Message-ID: <015101ca72c3$c08cc2c0$41a64840$@com.br> Consistent with all we have been discussing fro some period. I would consider this one the final one. It is very good. best Vanda Scartezini NEXTi_v1.jpg tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 mob:+ 55 11 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: S?bastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 1:24 PM To: icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: 'Adam Peake'; 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr'; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Carlton Samuels'; 'Vanda UOL'; 'Evan Leibovitch' Subject: At-Large/ALAC comments on Draft Final Report of the ICANN Board Review Working Group All, Thanks Adam for your input. I try to build a new version taking into account your propositions. Please find it hare and attached. Your comments are welcome. Introduction The ICANN Board Review Working Group issue a Draft Final Report on the 19th of September 2009 open for comments. http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/board-review-wg-draft-final-report-19s ep09-en.pdf The following document select the main issues At-Large/ALAC is willing to address, propose comments and opinions to be raise as an Advisor body to the board concerning the Board review and linked maters. They will be also provided to http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200911.html#board-revi ew-2009 At-Large / ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment upon the draft final report of the ICANN Board Review Working Group. Our comments have been divided following the recommendations of the draft final report. At-Large / ALAC want to express a broad support of the WG recommendations contain in the Draft Final Report. Recommendation #1: Reduce the size of the board The At-Large / ALAC fully support ?the specific nature and unique governance model of ICANN?. A large representativeness of the board is very important. The role of the NomCom to provide balance and diversity is essential because in the other bodies selecting board members there is no possibilities to have any balance. For example GNSO with the 2 board directors who will come from each house or At-Large / ALAC with just one board member, are not able even to have any balance. CcNSO council and ALAC are good examples for real geographic balance but there still a lot to do for other type of balance even with the help of the NomCom. At-Large / ALAC think that right now 2 seats elected by At-Large / ALAC will allow some balance possibilities and to be more confidante that the voice of the End-Users will participate better to the Board of ICANN work. At-Large / ALAC agree with the WG overall conclusion that on balance no change in the current liaison arrangement needs to be made. But disagrees with the WG when it suggests an At Large voting director should replace the ALAC liaison. ALAC recommends that when the At Large voting director is selected and seated, the ALAC liaison position to the board continues at least until such time as a second voting Director in put in place (as recommended during the ALAC review) The roles of the liaison and voting director are different, it is important that the ALAC as an advisory committee is able to present opinions on policy to the board that reflect the bottom-up End users/ALS/RALO process. The person selected by the At Large end users as a voting director will serve the interests of the corporation and not act as a representative of the constituency that selected them. The board will loose an important input on ICANN policy if the liaison is removed at this time. At-Large / ALAC is currently working on a selection/election process for the voting director. Recommendation #2: Move to fewer but longer board meetings At-Large / ALAC agrees with the WG comment. However, we are concerned that the WG is suggesting the board take on more work and this is not consistent with what we believe should be the overall intent of the review to reduce Director's workload and time spent on ICANN matters. Whatever changes are made, we insist that the board continue to operate in the most transparent and open manner possible. Particularly we recommend that all staff inputs to the board --policy briefing documents, note for board meetings, etc-- be made publicly available. Recommendation #3: Consolidate the board committees At-Large / ALAC agrees with the WG, no further comment. Recommendation #4: Broaden the skills of the board At-Large / ALAC broadly agrees with the WG's comments. However At-Large / ALAC request that the community to work on giving weight (or a ranking) to the following items to allow a better mix within the Board (and the other bodies) of ICANN: ? skill, ? experience, ? independence, ? geographic, ? cultural, ? stakeholder diversity, ? gender, ? language, ? ability, ? competency To start the debate At-Large / ALAC believes it is very importance that ICANN seeks to achieve gender balance membership of the board and in all decision-making bodies. The working group's final report should make a recommendation to this effect. At-Large / ALAC wishes to note the importance of the NomCom as an independent committee and that it must remain so. We would like the WG to be more direct in rejecting the proposal in 4.c. At-Large / ALAC believes that it is important for the NomCom to meet with all the bodies it selects people for, and also with other ICANN committees and constituencies. This is to ensure the NomCom is fully informed of the ICANN community's opinions and needs regarding the NomCom's work, and that the community is encouraged to support the NomCom in identifying likely candidates. Regarding recommendation 4(d) At-Large / ALAC is already giving inputs to the NomCom by informal exchanges between the two Chairs. We would like to amend the recommendation 4(g) by (g) Occasionally invite prominent company [and not-for-profit organizations] directors to meet the board [over dinner] to talk about 'the role of the director'. Recommendation #5: Make board membership more sustainable At-Large / ALAC disagrees with the WG regarding extending the term of board members to 4 years. We have seen no evidence that a longer term is required, board members have been able to get up to speed and contribute fully within their first year of service. A longer term may cause problems with board members who are not performing to the fullest of their abilities, but do not meet the threshold for removal. A longer term may make it more difficult to recruit candidates to what is known to be a very demanding and time consuming position. Regarding removal and replacement of Directors, At-Large / ALAC notes that other bodies that the NomCom selects people for have already put in place processes for removal, under certain circumstances, of NomCom appointees in their own bylaws and procedures. We suggest that these processes should be consistent across all the bodies the NomCom selects for and the General Counsel should include this task in his work recommended by the WG. Once disbanded, the NomCom has no institutional memory and only retains information about candidates for one year. As such the NomCom may not be in a position to help with a replacement process for any vacancy occurring after a person's first year of service. The board, in consultation with the ICANN community may be the only body able to select a replacement (note, the Board's selection of GNSO Council member for the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group.) At-Large / ALAC broadly supports providing compensation for board members and for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in their work for ICANN. The General Counsel's study on compensation should include an examination of possible methods (for example, from an annual fee to a series of seating allowances that might better reflect the work done by individual members, etc) and the appropriate level of compensation, taking into consideration compensation made to corporate and non-profit boards, national and international organizations around the world. Recommendation #6: Build 'high performance' culture at the board level At-Large / ALAC has begun a process of creating performance indicators for ALAC members. We agree with the WG's comments. Recommendation #7: Strengthen the 'strategic' focus of the board At-Large / ALAC supports the WG's comments, with some observations. Regarding comments on 7.a, whatever changes are implemented, the full transparency, openness and accountability of the board must be ensured. 7.b, we agree to the importance of the strategic and operational planning processes, however we believe the board should focus on the goals of these processes, it should lead them and make sure they are successfully met. We are concerned that any goals independent of the strategic and operational planning processes might be a distraction and detract from their successful implementation. Regarding 7.c, it would be helpful to accurately understand how much time board members spend on ICANN matters. Many estimates have been made, and accurate knowledge would help matters ranging from recruitment to compensation. Such data may also identify areas that can be improved. Recommendation #8: Clarify the board?s accountabilities. Initiate a program of discussions that explore the following propositions At-Large / ALAC agrees with the WG's comments. S?bastien Bachollet Pr?sident d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr > -----Message d'origine----- > De : icann-future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:icann- > future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake > Envoy? : samedi 28 novembre 2009 16:05 ? : > icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org > Objet : Re: [Icann-future-wg] call -- sorry > > Sebastien, all, as promised, some comments on the ALAC statement on > the board review. Please note recommendation 5, do you agree with me, > 4 years is a bad idea? > > Sebastien, about recommendation 1 and your comments. I hope Alan, > Carlton and others can help with redrafting. But three comments: > > 1. ALAC agrees with the WG overall conclusion that on balance no > change in the current liaison arrangement needs to be made. But > disagrees with the WG when it suggests an At Large voting director > should replace the ALAC liaison. ALAC recommends that when the At > Large voting director is selected and seated, the ALAC liaison > position to the board continues at least until such time as a second > voting Director in put in place (as recommended during the ALAC > review.) The roles of the liaison and voting director are different, > it is important that the ALAC as an advisory committee is able to > present opinions on policy to the board that reflect the bottom-up > RALO process. The person selected by the At Large end users as a > voting director will serve the interests of the corporation and not > act as a representative of the constituency that selected them. The > board will loose an important input on ICANN policy if the liaison is > removed. > > 2. The ALAC is currently working on a selection process for the voting > director. > > 3. The ALAC believes it is very importance that ICANN seeks to achieve > gender balance membership of the board and in all decision-making > bodies. The working group's final report should make a recommendation > to this effect. > > Other recommendations. > > Recommendation 2. ALAC agrees with the WG comment. However, we are > concerned that the WG is suggesting the board take on more work and > this is not consistent with what we believe should be the overall > intent of the review to reduce Director's workload and time spent on > ICANN matters. Whatever changes are made, we insist that the board > continue to operate in the most transparent and open manner possible. > Particularly we recommend that all staff inputs to the board --policy > briefing documents, note for board meetings, etc-- be made publicly > available. > > Recommendation 3. Agree with the WG, no further comment. > > Recommendation 4. Note that the ALAC broadly agrees with the WG's > comments and then go to Sebastien's comment. About the draft response > to 4.g, I think remove the word "dinner", just meet with. > About 4.c, (I think Sebastien's note calls it 4.d) 4.c, The ALAC > wishes to note the importance of the NomCom as an independent > committee and that it must remain so. We would like the WG to be more > direct in rejecting the proposal in 4.c. ALAC believes that it is > important for the NomCom to meet with all the bodies it selects people > for, and also with other ALAC committees and constituencies. > This is to ensure the NomCom is fully informed of the ICANN > community's opinions and needs regarding the NomCom's work, and that > the community is encouraged to support the NomCom in identifying > likely candidates. > > Recommendation 5. > > ALAC disagrees with the WG regarding extending the term of board > members to 4 years. We have seen no evidence that a longer term is > required, board members have been able to get up to speed and > contribute fully within their first year of service. A longer term > may cause problems with board members who are not performing to the > fullest of their abilities, but do not meet the threshold for removal. > A longer term may make it more difficult to recruit candidates to what > is known to be a very demanding and time consuming position. > > ALAC is pleased to note that the WG refers to "At Large appointees", > plural, to the board. Please see our comments about retaining the > liaison, above. [**THIS might be a bit flippant, Adam**] > > Regarding removal and replacement of Directors, ALAC notes that other > bodies that the NomCom selects people for have already put in place > processes for removal, under certain circumstances, of NomCom > appointees in their own bylaws and procedures. We suggest that these > processes should be consistent across all the bodies the NomCom > selects for and the General Counsel should include this task in his > work recommended by the WG. > > Once disbanded, the NomCom has no institutional memory and only > retains information about candidates for one year. As such the NomCom > may not be in a position to help with a replacement process for any > vacancy occurring after a person's first year of service. The board, > in consultation with the ICANN community may be the only body able to > select a replacement (note, the Board's selection of GNSO Council > member for the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group.) > > ALAC broadly supports providing compensation for board members and for > the reimbursement of expenses incurred in their work for ICANN. > The General Counsel's study on compensation should include an > examination of possible methods (for example, from an annual fee to a > series of seating allowances that might better reflect the work done > by individual members, etc) and the appropriate level of compensation, > taking into compensation made to corporate and non-profit boards, > national and international organizations around the world. > > Recommendation 6. > > The ALAC has begun a process of creating performance indicators for > ALAC members. We agree with the WG's comments. > > > Recommendation 7. > > ALAC supports the WG's comments, with some observations. Regarding > comments on 7.a, whatever changes are implemented, the full > transparency, openness and accountability of the board must be > ensured. 7.b, we agree to the importance of the strategic and > operational planning processes, however we believe the board should > focus on the goals of these processes, it should lead them and make > sure they are successfully met. We are concerned that any goals > independent of the strategic and operational planning processes might > be a distraction and detract from their successful implementation. > Regarding 7.c, it would be helpful to accurately understand how much > time board members spend on ICANN matters. Many estimates have been > made, and accurate knowledge would help matters ranging from > recruitment to compensation. Such data may also identify areas that > can be improved. > > Recommendation 8. > > ALAC agrees with the WG's comments. > > Thank you, etc... > > _______________________________________________ > ICANN-Future-WG mailing list > ICANN-Future-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future- > wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20091201/2203a995/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1570 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20091201/2203a995/attachment.jpe From langdonorr at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 21:16:26 2009 From: langdonorr at gmail.com (Cheryl Langdon-Orr) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 08:16:26 +1100 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] At-Large/ALAC comments on Draft Final Report of the ICANN Board Review Working Group In-Reply-To: <015101ca72c3$c08cc2c0$41a64840$@com.br> References: <4B0FDDE7.5070307@icann.org> <015101ca72c3$c08cc2c0$41a64840$@com.br> Message-ID: <904113ab0912011316h3ec05d17w9ab9bd5df96ab7ea@mail.gmail.com> Works for me :-) CLO 2009/12/2 Vanda UOL > Consistent with all we have been discussing fro some period. I would > consider this one the final one. It is very good. > > best > > > > *Vanda Scartezini* > > [image: NEXTi_v1.jpg] > > *tel: + 55 11 3266.6253* > > *mob:+ 55 11 8181.1464* > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: S?bastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr] > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 1:24 PM > To: icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org > Cc: 'Adam Peake'; 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr'; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Carlton > Samuels'; 'Vanda UOL'; 'Evan Leibovitch' > Subject: At-Large/ALAC comments on Draft Final Report of the ICANN Board > Review Working Group > > > > All, > > Thanks Adam for your input. > > I try to build a new version taking into account your propositions. > > Please find it hare and attached. > > Your comments are welcome. > > > > Introduction > > The ICANN Board Review Working Group issue a Draft Final Report on the 19th > of September 2009 open for comments. > > > http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/board-review-wg-draft-final-report-19s > > ep09-en.pdf > > > > The following document select the main issues At-Large/ALAC is willing to > address, propose comments and opinions to be raise as an Advisor body to the > board concerning the Board review and linked maters. > > They will be also provided to > > > http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200911.html#board-revi > > ew-2009 > > > > At-Large / ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment upon the draft final > report of the ICANN Board Review Working Group. Our comments have been > divided following the recommendations of the draft final report. > > > > At-Large / ALAC want to express a broad support of the WG recommendations > contain in the Draft Final Report. > > > > Recommendation #1: Reduce the size of the board The At-Large / ALAC fully > support ?the specific nature and unique governance model of ICANN?. A large > representativeness of the board is very important. > > The role of the NomCom to provide balance and diversity is essential > because in the other bodies selecting board members there is no > possibilities to have any balance. > > For example GNSO with the 2 board directors who will come from each house > or At-Large / ALAC with just one board member, are not able even to have any > balance. CcNSO council and ALAC are good examples for real geographic > balance but there still a lot to do for other type of balance even with the > help of the NomCom. > > > > At-Large / ALAC think that right now 2 seats elected by At-Large / ALAC > will allow some balance possibilities and to be more confidante that the > voice of the End-Users will participate better to the Board of ICANN work. > > > > At-Large / ALAC agree with the WG overall conclusion that on balance no > change in the current liaison arrangement needs to be made. But disagrees > with the WG when it suggests an At Large voting director should replace the > ALAC liaison. ALAC recommends that when the At Large voting director is > selected and seated, the ALAC liaison position to the board continues at > least until such time as a second voting Director in put in place (as > recommended during the ALAC > > review) The roles of the liaison and voting director are different, it is > important that the ALAC as an advisory committee is able to present opinions > on policy to the board that reflect the bottom-up End users/ALS/RALO > process. The person selected by the At Large end users as a voting director > will serve the interests of the corporation and not act as a representative > of the constituency that selected them. The board will loose an important > input on ICANN policy if the liaison is removed at this time. > > > > At-Large / ALAC is currently working on a selection/election process for > the voting director. > > > > Recommendation #2: Move to fewer but longer board meetings At-Large / ALAC > agrees with the WG comment. However, we are concerned that the WG is > suggesting the board take on more work and this is not consistent with what > we believe should be the overall intent of the review to reduce Director's > workload and time spent on ICANN matters. Whatever changes are made, we > insist that the board continue to operate in the most transparent and open > manner possible. > > Particularly we recommend that all staff inputs to the board --policy > briefing documents, note for board meetings, etc-- be made publicly > available. > > > > Recommendation #3: Consolidate the board committees At-Large / ALAC agrees > with the WG, no further comment. > > > > Recommendation #4: Broaden the skills of the board At-Large / ALAC broadly > agrees with the WG's comments. > > However At-Large / ALAC request that the community to work on giving weight > (or a ranking) to the following items to allow a better mix within the Board > (and the other bodies) of ICANN: > > ? skill, > > ? experience, > > ? independence, > > ? geographic, > > ? cultural, > > ? stakeholder diversity, > > ? gender, > > ? language, > > ? ability, > > ? competency? > > To start the debate At-Large / ALAC believes it is very importance that > ICANN seeks to achieve gender balance membership of the board and in all > decision-making bodies. The working group's final report should make a > recommendation to this effect. > > > > At-Large / ALAC wishes to note the importance of the NomCom as an > independent committee and that it must remain so. We would like the WG to > be more direct in rejecting the proposal in 4.c. At-Large / ALAC believes > that it is important for the NomCom to meet with all the bodies it selects > people for, and also with other ICANN committees and constituencies. > > This is to ensure the NomCom is fully informed of the ICANN community's > opinions and needs regarding the NomCom's work, and that the community is > encouraged to support the NomCom in identifying likely candidates. > > > > Regarding recommendation 4(d) At-Large / ALAC is already giving inputs to > the NomCom by informal exchanges between the two Chairs. > > > > We would like to amend the recommendation 4(g) by > > (g) Occasionally invite prominent company [and not-for-profit > organizations] directors to meet the board [over dinner] to talk about 'the > role of the director'. > > > > > > Recommendation #5: Make board membership more sustainable At-Large / ALAC > disagrees with the WG regarding extending the term of board members to 4 > years. We have seen no evidence that a longer term is required, board > members have been able to get up to speed and contribute fully within their > first year of service. A longer term may cause problems with board members > who are not performing to the fullest of their abilities, but do not meet > the threshold for removal. A longer term may make it more difficult to > recruit candidates to what is known to be a very demanding and time > consuming position. > > > > Regarding removal and replacement of Directors, At-Large / ALAC notes that > other bodies that the NomCom selects people for have already put in place > processes for removal, under certain circumstances, of NomCom appointees in > their own bylaws and procedures. We suggest that these processes should be > consistent across all the bodies the NomCom selects for and the General > Counsel should include this task in his work recommended by the WG. > > > > Once disbanded, the NomCom has no institutional memory and only retains > information about candidates for one year. As such the NomCom may not be in > a position to help with a replacement process for any vacancy occurring > after a person's first year of service. The board, in consultation with the > ICANN community may be the only body able to select a replacement (note, the > Board's selection of GNSO Council member for the Non-commercial Stakeholders > > Group.) > > > > At-Large / ALAC broadly supports providing compensation for board members > and for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in their work for ICANN. > > The General Counsel's study on compensation should include an examination > of possible methods (for example, from an annual fee to a series of seating > allowances that might better reflect the work done by individual members, > > etc) and the appropriate level of compensation, taking into consideration > compensation made to corporate and non-profit boards, national and > international organizations around the world. > > > > > > Recommendation #6: Build 'high performance' culture at the board level > At-Large / ALAC has begun a process of creating performance indicators for > ALAC members. We agree with the WG's comments. > > > > > > Recommendation #7: Strengthen the 'strategic' focus of the board At-Large / > ALAC supports the WG's comments, with some observations. > > Regarding comments on 7.a, whatever changes are implemented, the full > transparency, openness and accountability of the board must be ensured. > > 7.b, we agree to the importance of the strategic and operational planning > processes, however we believe the board should focus on the goals of these > processes, it should lead them and make sure they are successfully met. We > are concerned that any goals independent of the strategic and operational > planning processes might be a distraction and detract from their successful > implementation. > > Regarding 7.c, it would be helpful to accurately understand how much time > board members spend on ICANN matters. Many estimates have been made, and > accurate knowledge would help matters ranging from recruitment to > compensation. Such data may also identify areas that can be improved. > > > > > > Recommendation #8: Clarify the board?s accountabilities. > > Initiate a program of discussions that explore the following propositions > At-Large / ALAC agrees with the WG's comments. > > > > S?bastien Bachollet > > Pr?sident d'honneur - Isoc France > > sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr > > www.egeni.org > > www.isoc.fr > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > De : icann-future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:icann- > > > future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake > > > Envoy? : samedi 28 novembre 2009 16:05 ? : > > > icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > Objet : Re: [Icann-future-wg] call -- sorry > > > > > > Sebastien, all, as promised, some comments on the ALAC statement on > > > the board review. Please note recommendation 5, do you agree with me, > > > 4 years is a bad idea? > > > > > > Sebastien, about recommendation 1 and your comments. I hope Alan, > > > Carlton and others can help with redrafting. But three comments: > > > > > > 1. ALAC agrees with the WG overall conclusion that on balance no > > > change in the current liaison arrangement needs to be made. But > > > disagrees with the WG when it suggests an At Large voting director > > > should replace the ALAC liaison. ALAC recommends that when the At > > > Large voting director is selected and seated, the ALAC liaison > > > position to the board continues at least until such time as a second > > > voting Director in put in place (as recommended during the ALAC > > > review.) The roles of the liaison and voting director are different, > > > it is important that the ALAC as an advisory committee is able to > > > present opinions on policy to the board that reflect the bottom-up > > > RALO process. The person selected by the At Large end users as a > > > voting director will serve the interests of the corporation and not > > > act as a representative of the constituency that selected them. The > > > board will loose an important input on ICANN policy if the liaison is > > > removed. > > > > > > 2. The ALAC is currently working on a selection process for the voting > > > director. > > > > > > 3. The ALAC believes it is very importance that ICANN seeks to achieve > > > gender balance membership of the board and in all decision-making > > > bodies. The working group's final report should make a recommendation > > > to this effect. > > > > > > Other recommendations. > > > > > > Recommendation 2. ALAC agrees with the WG comment. However, we are > > > concerned that the WG is suggesting the board take on more work and > > > this is not consistent with what we believe should be the overall > > > intent of the review to reduce Director's workload and time spent on > > > ICANN matters. Whatever changes are made, we insist that the board > > > continue to operate in the most transparent and open manner possible. > > > Particularly we recommend that all staff inputs to the board --policy > > > briefing documents, note for board meetings, etc-- be made publicly > > > available. > > > > > > Recommendation 3. Agree with the WG, no further comment. > > > > > > Recommendation 4. Note that the ALAC broadly agrees with the WG's > > > comments and then go to Sebastien's comment. About the draft response > > > to 4.g, I think remove the word "dinner", just meet with. > > > About 4.c, (I think Sebastien's note calls it 4.d) 4.c, The ALAC > > > wishes to note the importance of the NomCom as an independent > > > committee and that it must remain so. We would like the WG to be more > > > direct in rejecting the proposal in 4.c. ALAC believes that it is > > > important for the NomCom to meet with all the bodies it selects people > > > for, and also with other ALAC committees and constituencies. > > > This is to ensure the NomCom is fully informed of the ICANN > > > community's opinions and needs regarding the NomCom's work, and that > > > the community is encouraged to support the NomCom in identifying > > > likely candidates. > > > > > > Recommendation 5. > > > > > > ALAC disagrees with the WG regarding extending the term of board > > > members to 4 years. We have seen no evidence that a longer term is > > > required, board members have been able to get up to speed and > > > contribute fully within their first year of service. A longer term > > > may cause problems with board members who are not performing to the > > > fullest of their abilities, but do not meet the threshold for removal. > > > A longer term may make it more difficult to recruit candidates to what > > > is known to be a very demanding and time consuming position. > > > > > > ALAC is pleased to note that the WG refers to "At Large appointees", > > > plural, to the board. Please see our comments about retaining the > > > liaison, above. [**THIS might be a bit flippant, Adam**] > > > > > > Regarding removal and replacement of Directors, ALAC notes that other > > > bodies that the NomCom selects people for have already put in place > > > processes for removal, under certain circumstances, of NomCom > > > appointees in their own bylaws and procedures. We suggest that these > > > processes should be consistent across all the bodies the NomCom > > > selects for and the General Counsel should include this task in his > > > work recommended by the WG. > > > > > > Once disbanded, the NomCom has no institutional memory and only > > > retains information about candidates for one year. As such the NomCom > > > may not be in a position to help with a replacement process for any > > > vacancy occurring after a person's first year of service. The board, > > > in consultation with the ICANN community may be the only body able to > > > select a replacement (note, the Board's selection of GNSO Council > > > member for the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group.) > > > > > > ALAC broadly supports providing compensation for board members and for > > > the reimbursement of expenses incurred in their work for ICANN. > > > The General Counsel's study on compensation should include an > > > examination of possible methods (for example, from an annual fee to a > > > series of seating allowances that might better reflect the work done > > > by individual members, etc) and the appropriate level of compensation, > > > taking into compensation made to corporate and non-profit boards, > > > national and international organizations around the world. > > > > > > Recommendation 6. > > > > > > The ALAC has begun a process of creating performance indicators for > > > ALAC members. We agree with the WG's comments. > > > > > > > > > Recommendation 7. > > > > > > ALAC supports the WG's comments, with some observations. Regarding > > > comments on 7.a, whatever changes are implemented, the full > > > transparency, openness and accountability of the board must be > > > ensured. 7.b, we agree to the importance of the strategic and > > > operational planning processes, however we believe the board should > > > focus on the goals of these processes, it should lead them and make > > > sure they are successfully met. We are concerned that any goals > > > independent of the strategic and operational planning processes might > > > be a distraction and detract from their successful implementation. > > > Regarding 7.c, it would be helpful to accurately understand how much > > > time board members spend on ICANN matters. Many estimates have been > > > made, and accurate knowledge would help matters ranging from > > > recruitment to compensation. Such data may also identify areas that > > > can be improved. > > > > > > Recommendation 8. > > > > > > ALAC agrees with the WG's comments. > > > > > > Thank you, etc... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ICANN-Future-WG mailing list > > > ICANN-Future-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future- > > > wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org > -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20091202/6f7c08c8/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1570 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20091202/6f7c08c8/attachment.jpe From carlton.samuels at gmail.com Wed Dec 2 09:17:43 2009 From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com (Carlton Samuels) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 04:17:43 -0500 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] At-Large/ALAC comments on Draft Final Report of the ICANN Board Review Working Group In-Reply-To: <-1471643682060865924@unknownmsgid> References: <4B0FDDE7.5070307@icann.org> <-1471643682060865924@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <61a136f40912020117l33e7e6b7p1c99d1b3dbb00de@mail.gmail.com> This has my support, in general. There are a few typos and such that I'm sure Adam will get to. Carlton On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM, S?bastien Bachollet < sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr> wrote: > All, > Thanks Adam for your input. > I try to build a new version taking into account your propositions. > Please find it hare and attached. > Your comments are welcome. > > Introduction > The ICANN Board Review Working Group issue a Draft Final Report on the 19th > of September 2009 open for comments. > > http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/board-review-wg-draft-final-report-19s > ep09-en.pdf > > The following document select the main issues At-Large/ALAC is willing to > address, propose comments and opinions to be raise as an Advisor body to > the > board concerning the Board review and linked maters. > They will be also provided to > > http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200911.html#board-revi > ew-2009 > > At-Large / ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment upon the draft final > report of the ICANN Board Review Working Group. Our comments have been > divided following the recommendations of the draft final report. > > At-Large / ALAC want to express a broad support of the WG recommendations > contain in the Draft Final Report. > > Recommendation #1: Reduce the size of the board > The At-Large / ALAC fully support ?the specific nature and unique > governance > model of ICANN?. A large representativeness of the board is very important. > The role of the NomCom to provide balance and diversity is essential > because > in the other bodies selecting board members there is no possibilities to > have any balance. > For example GNSO with the 2 board directors who will come from each house > or > At-Large / ALAC with just one board member, are not able even to have any > balance. CcNSO council and ALAC are good examples for real geographic > balance but there still a lot to do for other type of balance even with the > help of the NomCom. > > At-Large / ALAC think that right now 2 seats elected by At-Large / ALAC > will > allow some balance possibilities and to be more confidante that the voice > of > the End-Users will participate better to the Board of ICANN work. > > At-Large / ALAC agree with the WG overall conclusion that on balance no > change in the current liaison arrangement needs to be made. But disagrees > with the WG when it suggests an At Large voting director should replace the > ALAC liaison. ALAC recommends that when the At Large voting director is > selected and seated, the ALAC liaison position to the board continues at > least until such time as a second voting Director in put in place (as > recommended during the ALAC > review) The roles of the liaison and voting director are different, it is > important that the ALAC as an advisory committee is able to present > opinions > on policy to the board that reflect the bottom-up End users/ALS/RALO > process. The person selected by the At Large end users as a voting director > will serve the interests of the corporation and not act as a representative > of the constituency that selected them. The board will loose an important > input on ICANN policy if the liaison is removed at this time. > > At-Large / ALAC is currently working on a selection/election process for > the > voting director. > > Recommendation #2: Move to fewer but longer board meetings > At-Large / ALAC agrees with the WG comment. However, we are concerned that > the WG is suggesting the board take on more work and this is not consistent > with what we believe should be the overall intent of the review to reduce > Director's workload and time spent on ICANN matters. Whatever changes are > made, we insist that the board continue to operate in the most transparent > and open manner possible. > Particularly we recommend that all staff inputs to the board --policy > briefing documents, note for board meetings, etc-- be made publicly > available. > > Recommendation #3: Consolidate the board committees > At-Large / ALAC agrees with the WG, no further comment. > > Recommendation #4: Broaden the skills of the board > At-Large / ALAC broadly agrees with the WG's comments. > However At-Large / ALAC request that the community to work on giving weight > (or a ranking) to the following items to allow a better mix within the > Board > (and the other bodies) of ICANN: > ? skill, > ? experience, > ? independence, > ? geographic, > ? cultural, > ? stakeholder diversity, > ? gender, > ? language, > ? ability, > ? competency? > To start the debate At-Large / ALAC believes it is very importance that > ICANN seeks to achieve gender balance membership of the board and in all > decision-making bodies. The working group's final report should make a > recommendation to this effect. > > At-Large / ALAC wishes to note the importance of the NomCom as an > independent committee and that it must remain so. We would like the WG to > be more direct in rejecting the proposal in 4.c. At-Large / ALAC believes > that it is important for the NomCom to meet with all the bodies it selects > people for, and also with other ICANN committees and constituencies. > This is to ensure the NomCom is fully informed of the ICANN community's > opinions and needs regarding the NomCom's work, and that the community is > encouraged to support the NomCom in identifying likely candidates. > > Regarding recommendation 4(d) At-Large / ALAC is already giving inputs to > the NomCom by informal exchanges between the two Chairs. > > We would like to amend the recommendation 4(g) by > (g) Occasionally invite prominent company [and not-for-profit > organizations] > directors to meet the board [over dinner] to talk about 'the role of the > director'. > > > Recommendation #5: Make board membership more sustainable > At-Large / ALAC disagrees with the WG regarding extending the term of board > members to 4 years. We have seen no evidence that a longer term is > required, > board members have been able to get up to speed and contribute fully within > their first year of service. A longer term may cause problems with board > members who are not performing to the fullest of their abilities, but do > not > meet the threshold for removal. A longer term may make it more difficult > to > recruit candidates to what is known to be a very demanding and time > consuming position. > > Regarding removal and replacement of Directors, At-Large / ALAC notes that > other bodies that the NomCom selects people for have already put in place > processes for removal, under certain circumstances, of NomCom appointees in > their own bylaws and procedures. We suggest that these processes should be > consistent across all the bodies the NomCom selects for and the General > Counsel should include this task in his work recommended by the WG. > > Once disbanded, the NomCom has no institutional memory and only retains > information about candidates for one year. As such the NomCom may not be in > a position to help with a replacement process for any vacancy occurring > after a person's first year of service. The board, in consultation with > the > ICANN community may be the only body able to select a replacement (note, > the > Board's selection of GNSO Council member for the Non-commercial > Stakeholders > Group.) > > At-Large / ALAC broadly supports providing compensation for board members > and for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in their work for ICANN. > The General Counsel's study on compensation should include an examination > of > possible methods (for example, from an annual fee to a series of seating > allowances that might better reflect the work done by individual members, > etc) and the appropriate level of compensation, taking into consideration > compensation made to corporate and non-profit boards, national and > international organizations around the world. > > > Recommendation #6: Build 'high performance' culture at the board level > At-Large / ALAC has begun a process of creating performance indicators for > ALAC members. We agree with the WG's comments. > > > Recommendation #7: Strengthen the 'strategic' focus of the board > At-Large / ALAC supports the WG's comments, with some observations. > Regarding comments on 7.a, whatever changes are implemented, the full > transparency, openness and accountability of the board must be ensured. > 7.b, we agree to the importance of the strategic and operational planning > processes, however we believe the board should focus on the goals of these > processes, it should lead them and make sure they are successfully met. We > are concerned that any goals independent of the strategic and operational > planning processes might be a distraction and detract from their successful > implementation. > Regarding 7.c, it would be helpful to accurately understand how much time > board members spend on ICANN matters. Many estimates have been made, and > accurate knowledge would help matters ranging from recruitment to > compensation. Such data may also identify areas that can be improved. > > > Recommendation #8: Clarify the board?s accountabilities. > Initiate a program of discussions that explore the following propositions > At-Large / ALAC agrees with the WG's comments. > > S?bastien Bachollet > Pr?sident d'honneur - Isoc France > sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr > www.egeni.org > www.isoc.fr > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : icann-future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:icann- > > future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake > > Envoy? : samedi 28 novembre 2009 16:05 > > ? : icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Objet : Re: [Icann-future-wg] call -- sorry > > > > Sebastien, all, as promised, some comments on the ALAC statement on > > the board review. Please note recommendation 5, do you agree with > > me, 4 years is a bad idea? > > > > Sebastien, about recommendation 1 and your comments. I hope Alan, > > Carlton and others can help with redrafting. But three comments: > > > > 1. ALAC agrees with the WG overall conclusion that on balance no > > change in the current liaison arrangement needs to be made. But > > disagrees with the WG when it suggests an At Large voting director > > should replace the ALAC liaison. ALAC recommends that when the At > > Large voting director is selected and seated, the ALAC liaison > > position to the board continues at least until such time as a second > > voting Director in put in place (as recommended during the ALAC > > review.) The roles of the liaison and voting director are different, > > it is important that the ALAC as an advisory committee is able to > > present opinions on policy to the board that reflect the bottom-up > > RALO process. The person selected by the At Large end users as a > > voting director will serve the interests of the corporation and not > > act as a representative of the constituency that selected them. The > > board will loose an important input on ICANN policy if the liaison is > > removed. > > > > 2. The ALAC is currently working on a selection process for the > > voting director. > > > > 3. The ALAC believes it is very importance that ICANN seeks to > > achieve gender balance membership of the board and in all > > decision-making bodies. The working group's final report should make > > a recommendation to this effect. > > > > Other recommendations. > > > > Recommendation 2. ALAC agrees with the WG comment. However, we are > > concerned that the WG is suggesting the board take on more work and > > this is not consistent with what we believe should be the overall > > intent of the review to reduce Director's workload and time spent on > > ICANN matters. Whatever changes are made, we insist that the board > > continue to operate in the most transparent and open manner possible. > > Particularly we recommend that all staff inputs to the board --policy > > briefing documents, note for board meetings, etc-- be made publicly > > available. > > > > Recommendation 3. Agree with the WG, no further comment. > > > > Recommendation 4. Note that the ALAC broadly agrees with the WG's > > comments and then go to Sebastien's comment. About the draft > > response to 4.g, I think remove the word "dinner", just meet with. > > About 4.c, (I think Sebastien's note calls it 4.d) 4.c, The ALAC > > wishes to note the importance of the NomCom as an independent > > committee and that it must remain so. We would like the WG to be > > more direct in rejecting the proposal in 4.c. ALAC believes that it > > is important for the NomCom to meet with all the bodies it selects > > people for, and also with other ALAC committees and constituencies. > > This is to ensure the NomCom is fully informed of the ICANN > > community's opinions and needs regarding the NomCom's work, and that > > the community is encouraged to support the NomCom in identifying > > likely candidates. > > > > Recommendation 5. > > > > ALAC disagrees with the WG regarding extending the term of board > > members to 4 years. We have seen no evidence that a longer term is > > required, board members have been able to get up to speed and > > contribute fully within their first year of service. A longer term > > may cause problems with board members who are not performing to the > > fullest of their abilities, but do not meet the threshold for > > removal. A longer term may make it more difficult to recruit > > candidates to what is known to be a very demanding and time consuming > > position. > > > > ALAC is pleased to note that the WG refers to "At Large appointees", > > plural, to the board. Please see our comments about retaining the > > liaison, above. [**THIS might be a bit flippant, Adam**] > > > > Regarding removal and replacement of Directors, ALAC notes that other > > bodies that the NomCom selects people for have already put in place > > processes for removal, under certain circumstances, of NomCom > > appointees in their own bylaws and procedures. We suggest that these > > processes should be consistent across all the bodies the NomCom > > selects for and the General Counsel should include this task in his > > work recommended by the WG. > > > > Once disbanded, the NomCom has no institutional memory and only > > retains information about candidates for one year. As such the NomCom > > may not be in a position to help with a replacement process for any > > vacancy occurring after a person's first year of service. The board, > > in consultation with the ICANN community may be the only body able to > > select a replacement (note, the Board's selection of GNSO Council > > member for the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group.) > > > > ALAC broadly supports providing compensation for board members and > > for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in their work for ICANN. > > The General Counsel's study on compensation should include an > > examination of possible methods (for example, from an annual fee to a > > series of seating allowances that might better reflect the work done > > by individual members, etc) and the appropriate level of > > compensation, taking into compensation made to corporate and > > non-profit boards, national and international organizations around > > the world. > > > > Recommendation 6. > > > > The ALAC has begun a process of creating performance indicators for > > ALAC members. We agree with the WG's comments. > > > > > > Recommendation 7. > > > > ALAC supports the WG's comments, with some observations. Regarding > > comments on 7.a, whatever changes are implemented, the full > > transparency, openness and accountability of the board must be > > ensured. 7.b, we agree to the importance of the strategic and > > operational planning processes, however we believe the board should > > focus on the goals of these processes, it should lead them and make > > sure they are successfully met. We are concerned that any goals > > independent of the strategic and operational planning processes might > > be a distraction and detract from their successful implementation. > > Regarding 7.c, it would be helpful to accurately understand how much > > time board members spend on ICANN matters. Many estimates have been > > made, and accurate knowledge would help matters ranging from > > recruitment to compensation. Such data may also identify areas that > > can be improved. > > > > Recommendation 8. > > > > ALAC agrees with the WG's comments. > > > > Thank you, etc... > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ICANN-Future-WG mailing list > > ICANN-Future-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future- > > wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20091202/6a2c9de1/attachment.html From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Dec 2 14:34:39 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 23:34:39 +0900 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] At-Large/ALAC comments on Draft Final Report of the ICANN Board Review Working Group In-Reply-To: <61a136f40912020117l33e7e6b7p1c99d1b3dbb00de@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B0FDDE7.5070307@icann.org> <-1471643682060865924@unknownmsgid> <61a136f40912020117l33e7e6b7p1c99d1b3dbb00de@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: > This has my support, in general. ? ? There are a few typos and such that I'm > sure Adam will get to. No, I've no time before the end of the week. Preparing for a trip to the US next week and still catching up after the IGF. Can you can Alan take a look, I think you said you'd both read over the intro and recommendation 1 in particular. Adam > Carlton > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM, S?bastien Bachollet > wrote: >> >> All, >> Thanks Adam for your input. >> I try to build a new version taking into account your propositions. >> Please find it hare and attached. >> Your comments are welcome. >> >> Introduction >> The ICANN Board Review Working Group issue a Draft Final Report on the >> 19th >> of September 2009 open for comments. >> >> http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/board-review-wg-draft-final-report-19s >> ep09-en.pdf >> >> The following document select the main issues At-Large/ALAC is willing to >> address, propose comments and opinions to be raise as an Advisor body to >> the >> board concerning the Board review and linked maters. >> They will be also provided to >> >> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200911.html#board-revi >> ew-2009 >> >> At-Large / ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment upon the draft final >> report of the ICANN Board Review Working Group. Our comments have been >> divided following the recommendations of the draft final report. >> >> At-Large / ALAC want to express a broad support of the WG recommendations >> contain in the Draft Final Report. >> >> Recommendation #1: Reduce the size of the board >> The At-Large / ALAC fully support ?the specific nature and unique >> governance >> model of ICANN?. A large representativeness of the board is very >> important. >> The role of the NomCom to provide balance and diversity is essential >> because >> in the other bodies selecting board members there is no possibilities to >> have any balance. >> For example GNSO with the 2 board directors who will come from each house >> or >> At-Large / ALAC with just one board member, are not able even to have any >> balance. CcNSO council and ALAC are good examples for real geographic >> balance but there still a lot to do for other type of balance even with >> the >> help of the NomCom. >> >> At-Large / ALAC think that right now 2 seats elected by At-Large / ALAC >> will >> allow some balance possibilities and to be more confidante that the voice >> of >> the End-Users will participate better to the Board of ICANN work. >> >> At-Large / ALAC agree with the WG overall conclusion that on balance no >> change in the current liaison arrangement needs to be made. But disagrees >> with the WG when it suggests an At Large voting director should replace >> the >> ALAC liaison. ?ALAC recommends that when the At Large voting director is >> selected and seated, the ALAC liaison position to the board continues at >> least until such time as a second voting Director in put in place (as >> recommended during the ALAC >> review) ?The roles of the liaison and voting director are different, it is >> important that the ALAC as an advisory committee is able to present >> opinions >> on policy to the board that reflect the bottom-up End users/ALS/RALO >> process. The person selected by the At Large end users as a voting >> director >> will serve the interests of the corporation and not act as a >> representative >> of the constituency that selected them. ?The board will loose an important >> input on ICANN policy if the liaison is removed at this time. >> >> At-Large / ALAC is currently working on a selection/election process for >> the >> voting director. >> >> Recommendation #2: Move to fewer but longer board meetings >> At-Large / ALAC agrees with the WG comment. However, we are concerned that >> the WG is suggesting the board take on more work and this is not >> consistent >> with what we believe should be the overall intent of the review to reduce >> Director's workload and time spent on ICANN matters. ?Whatever changes are >> made, we insist that the board continue to operate in the most transparent >> and open manner possible. >> Particularly we recommend that all staff inputs to the board --policy >> briefing documents, note for board meetings, etc-- be made publicly >> available. >> >> Recommendation #3: Consolidate the board committees >> At-Large / ALAC agrees with the WG, no further comment. >> >> Recommendation #4: Broaden the skills of the board >> At-Large / ALAC broadly agrees with the WG's comments. >> However At-Large / ALAC request that the community to work on giving >> weight >> (or a ranking) to the following items to allow a better mix within the >> Board >> (and the other bodies) of ICANN: >> ? ? ? ? skill, >> ? ? ? ? experience, >> ? ? ? ? independence, >> ? ? ? ? geographic, >> ? ? ? ? cultural, >> ? ? ? ? stakeholder diversity, >> ? ? ? ? gender, >> ? ? ? ? language, >> ? ? ? ? ability, >> ? ? ? ? competency? >> To start the debate At-Large / ALAC believes it is very importance that >> ICANN seeks to achieve gender balance membership of the board and in all >> decision-making bodies. The working group's final report should make a >> recommendation to this effect. >> >> At-Large / ALAC wishes to note the importance of the NomCom as an >> independent committee and that it must remain so. ?We would like the WG to >> be more direct in rejecting the proposal in 4.c. ?At-Large / ALAC believes >> that it is important for the NomCom to meet with all the bodies it selects >> people for, and also with other ICANN committees and constituencies. >> This is to ensure the NomCom is fully informed of the ICANN community's >> opinions and needs regarding the NomCom's work, and that the community is >> encouraged to support the NomCom in identifying likely candidates. >> >> Regarding recommendation 4(d) At-Large / ALAC is already giving inputs to >> the NomCom by informal exchanges between the two Chairs. >> >> We would like to amend the recommendation 4(g) by >> (g) Occasionally invite prominent company [and not-for-profit >> organizations] >> directors to meet the board [over dinner] to talk about 'the role of the >> director'. >> >> >> Recommendation #5: Make board membership more sustainable >> At-Large / ALAC disagrees with the WG regarding extending the term of >> board >> members to 4 years. We have seen no evidence that a longer term is >> required, >> board members have been able to get up to speed and contribute fully >> within >> their first year of service. ?A longer term may cause problems with board >> members who are not performing to the fullest of their abilities, but do >> not >> meet the threshold for removal. ?A longer term may make it more difficult >> to >> recruit candidates to what is known to be a very demanding and time >> consuming position. >> >> Regarding removal and replacement of Directors, At-Large / ALAC notes that >> other bodies that the NomCom selects people for have already put in place >> processes for removal, under certain circumstances, of NomCom appointees >> in >> their own bylaws and procedures. ?We suggest that these processes should >> be >> consistent across all the bodies the NomCom selects for and the General >> Counsel should include this task in his work recommended by the WG. >> >> Once disbanded, the NomCom has no institutional memory and only retains >> information about candidates for one year. As such the NomCom may not be >> in >> a position to help with a replacement process for any vacancy occurring >> after a person's first year of service. ?The board, in consultation with >> the >> ICANN community may be the only body able to select a replacement (note, >> the >> Board's selection of GNSO Council member for the Non-commercial >> Stakeholders >> Group.) >> >> At-Large / ALAC broadly supports providing compensation for board members >> and for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in their work for ICANN. >> The General Counsel's study on compensation should include an examination >> of >> possible methods (for example, from an annual fee to a series of seating >> allowances that might better reflect the work done by individual members, >> etc) and the appropriate level of compensation, taking into consideration >> compensation made to corporate and non-profit boards, national and >> international organizations around the world. >> >> >> Recommendation #6: Build 'high performance' culture at the board level >> At-Large / ALAC has begun a process of creating performance indicators for >> ALAC members. ?We agree with the WG's comments. >> >> >> Recommendation #7: Strengthen the 'strategic' focus of the board >> At-Large / ALAC supports the WG's comments, with some observations. >> Regarding comments on 7.a, whatever changes are implemented, the full >> transparency, openness and accountability of the board must be ensured. >> 7.b, we agree to the importance of the strategic and operational planning >> processes, however we believe the board should focus on the goals of these >> processes, it should lead them and make sure they are successfully met. >> ?We >> are concerned that any goals independent of the strategic and operational >> planning processes might be a distraction and detract from their >> successful >> implementation. >> Regarding 7.c, it would be helpful to accurately understand how much time >> board members spend on ICANN matters. ?Many estimates have been made, and >> accurate knowledge would help matters ranging from recruitment to >> compensation. ?Such data may also identify areas that can be improved. >> >> >> Recommendation #8: Clarify the board?s accountabilities. >> Initiate a program of discussions that explore the following propositions >> At-Large / ALAC agrees with the WG's comments. >> >> S?bastien Bachollet >> Pr?sident d'honneur - Isoc France >> sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >> www.egeni.org >> www.isoc.fr >> >> >> >> > -----Message d'origine----- >> > De?: icann-future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:icann- >> > future-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake >> > Envoy??: samedi 28 novembre 2009 16:05 >> > ??: icann-future-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > Objet?: Re: [Icann-future-wg] call -- sorry >> > >> > Sebastien, all, as promised, some comments on the ALAC statement on >> > the board review. ?Please note recommendation 5, do you agree with >> > me, 4 years is a bad idea? >> > >> > Sebastien, about recommendation 1 and your comments. ?I hope Alan, >> > Carlton and others can help with redrafting. ?But three comments: >> > >> > 1. ALAC agrees with the WG overall conclusion that on balance no >> > change in the current liaison arrangement needs to be made. But >> > disagrees with the WG when it suggests an At Large voting director >> > should replace the ?ALAC liaison. ?ALAC recommends that when the At >> > Large voting director is selected and seated, the ALAC liaison >> > position to the board continues at least until such time as a second >> > voting Director in put in place (as recommended during the ALAC >> > review.) ?The roles of the liaison and voting director are different, >> > it is important that the ALAC as an advisory committee is able to >> > present opinions on policy to the board that reflect the bottom-up >> > RALO process. The person selected by the At Large end users as a >> > voting director will serve the interests of the corporation and not >> > act as a representative of the constituency that selected them. ?The >> > board will loose an important input on ICANN policy if the liaison is >> > removed. >> > >> > 2. The ALAC is currently working on a selection process for the >> > voting director. >> > >> > 3. The ALAC believes it is very importance that ICANN seeks to >> > achieve gender balance membership of the board and in all >> > decision-making bodies. The working group's final report should make >> > a recommendation to this effect. >> > >> > Other recommendations. >> > >> > Recommendation 2. ?ALAC agrees with the WG comment. However, we are >> > concerned that the WG is suggesting the board take on more work and >> > this is not consistent with what we believe should be the overall >> > intent of the review to reduce Director's workload and time spent on >> > ICANN matters. ?Whatever changes are made, we insist that the board >> > continue to operate in the most transparent and open manner possible. >> > Particularly we recommend that all staff inputs to the board --policy >> > briefing documents, note for board meetings, etc-- be made publicly >> > available. >> > >> > Recommendation 3. ?Agree with the WG, no further comment. >> > >> > Recommendation 4. Note that the ALAC broadly agrees with the WG's >> > comments and then go to Sebastien's comment. ?About the draft >> > response to 4.g, I think remove the word "dinner", just meet with. >> > About 4.c, (I think Sebastien's note calls it 4.d) ?4.c, The ALAC >> > wishes to note the importance of the NomCom as an independent >> > committee and that it must remain so. ?We would like the WG to be >> > more direct in rejecting the proposal in 4.c. ?ALAC believes that it >> > is important for the NomCom to meet with all the bodies it selects >> > people for, and also with other ALAC committees and constituencies. >> > This is to ensure the NomCom is fully informed of the ICANN >> > community's opinions and needs regarding the NomCom's work, and that >> > the community is encouraged to support the NomCom in identifying >> > likely candidates. >> > >> > Recommendation 5. >> > >> > ALAC disagrees with the WG regarding extending the term of board >> > members to 4 years. We have seen no evidence that a longer term is >> > required, board members have been able to get up to speed and >> > contribute fully within their first year of service. ?A longer term >> > may cause problems with board members who are not performing to the >> > fullest of their abilities, but do not meet the threshold for >> > removal. ?A longer term may make it more difficult to recruit >> > candidates to what is known to be a very demanding and time consuming >> > position. >> > >> > ALAC is pleased to note that the WG refers to "At Large appointees", >> > plural, to the board. ?Please see our comments about retaining the >> > liaison, above. [**THIS might be a bit flippant, Adam**] >> > >> > Regarding removal and replacement of Directors, ALAC notes that other >> > bodies that the NomCom selects people for have already put in place >> > processes for removal, under certain circumstances, of NomCom >> > appointees in their own bylaws and procedures. ?We suggest that these >> > processes should be consistent across all the bodies the NomCom >> > selects for and the General Counsel should include this task in his >> > work recommended by the WG. >> > >> > Once disbanded, the NomCom has no institutional memory and only >> > retains information about candidates for one year. As such the NomCom >> > may not be in a position to help with a replacement process for any >> > vacancy occurring after a person's first year of service. ?The board, >> > in consultation with the ICANN community may be the only body able to >> > select a replacement (note, the Board's selection of GNSO Council >> > member for the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group.) >> > >> > ALAC broadly supports providing compensation for board members and >> > for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in their work for ICANN. >> > The General Counsel's study on compensation should include an >> > examination of possible methods (for example, from an annual fee to a >> > series of seating allowances that might better reflect the work done >> > by individual members, etc) and the appropriate level of >> > compensation, taking into compensation made to corporate and >> > non-profit boards, national and international organizations around >> > the world. >> > >> > Recommendation 6. >> > >> > The ALAC has begun a process of creating performance indicators for >> > ALAC members. ?We agree with the WG's comments. >> > >> > >> > Recommendation 7. >> > >> > ALAC supports the WG's comments, with some observations. Regarding >> > comments on 7.a, whatever changes are implemented, the full >> > transparency, openness and accountability of the board must be >> > ensured. ?7.b, we agree to the importance of the strategic and >> > operational planning processes, however we believe the board should >> > focus on the goals of these processes, it should lead them and make >> > sure they are successfully met. ?We are concerned that any goals >> > independent of the strategic and operational planning processes might >> > be a distraction and detract from their successful implementation. >> > Regarding 7.c, it would be helpful to accurately understand how much >> > time board members spend on ICANN matters. ?Many estimates have been >> > made, and accurate knowledge would help matters ranging from >> > recruitment to compensation. ?Such data may also identify areas that >> > can be improved. >> > >> > Recommendation 8. >> > >> > ALAC agrees with the WG's comments. >> > >> > Thank you, etc... >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ICANN-Future-WG mailing list >> > ICANN-Future-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future- >> > wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > From staff at atlarge.icann.org Wed Dec 2 15:07:43 2009 From: staff at atlarge.icann.org (ICANN At-Large Staff) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 07:07:43 -0800 Subject: [Icann-future-wg] NEW PUBLIC CONSULTATION: Draft 2010-2013 Strategic Plan Message-ID: Dear All, On December 1st ICANN opened a public comment period opened on the Draft 2010-2013 Strategic Plan. It will remain open until January 21st 2010. Please find the original text of the announcement attached below: ****** As the next element of consultation on the Strategic Plan, ICANN invites comments from the community on a first draft of the plan based on material presented to the community at the Seoul meeting. In particular, we are seeking the views of the community on the following issues: 1. What should be the three to five year high level strategic objectives for each of the four areas of work? 2. What would be the specific metrics for each of the four areas of work? The comment period will close on 21 January 2010. The draft plan will be revised based on the comments received and the responses to the community survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=j4N7UAoVMQ_2bixC2FwvP6oQ_3d_3d) posted earlier this month. A final version of the Strategic Plan will be submitted to the Board for approval at their February meeting. Please go to http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#strat-plan-2010 in order to participate and share your comments on the draft Strategic Plan for 2010-2013. Links: * Draft Strategic Plan 2010-2013 : http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2010-2013-01dec09-en.pdf [PDF, 209K] ****** You can find this announcement under: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01dec09-en.htm -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff at atlarge.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-future-wg/attachments/20091202/04464c91/attachment.html