[ALAC] ALAC Candidate Selection Committee

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sun Jun 12 04:54:44 UTC 2016

Several months ago, we talked about forming (or perhaps reforming 
since there was one when Olivier was Chair) a candidate selection 
committee to make recommendations to the ALAC on the appointment of 
people to various positions.

There are generally two kinds of positions that we consider:

1. Positions appointed to (or recommended for appointment to, when 
the ALAC does not have the final say) various groups within ICANN. 
Examples include Cross-Community Working Groups (under the current 
rules used for the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability, and 
in the Draft CCWG Framework under consideration), Affirmation of 
Commitments Reviews (a name that probably will change under the 
pending Bylaw changes) and  the CSC overseeing the new IANA. In these 
cases, the appointee has a responsibility to work with the ALAC and 
At-Large, but does not normally formally represent them (thus we have 
found that the appointed members of the CCWG-Accountability have at 
times had different positions on some issues).

2. Positions where the person is a Liaison to other bodies, generally 
within ICANN, and formally represents the ALAC in those groups. 
Moreover, in some cases, there are specific requirements that must be met.

In the past, we have not used a selection committee for this second 
type of appointment, but the importance of them is such that I think 
that we should have formal discussions on the candidates before an 
ALAC vote. Moreover, our Rules of Procedure allow the ALAC to 
re-appoint Liaisons without opening nominations, a practice that some 
people have felt is not appropriate. A selection committee would be 
an ideal place to hold the discussion on whether to do so in any given case.

The issue has been discussed within the ALT, and the general feeling 
is that in the case of the first class of appointments, there should 
be a committee similar to that used when Olivier was Chair. 
Specifically, a group composed of ten people, led by the ALAC Chair, 
with five of its members selected by RALOs (according to their own 
rules ands standards) and five selected by the ALAC, one per region 
in each case. Such an ALAC committee is in accordance with RoP Section 18.3.

Most (or perhaps all) ALT members feel that using the ALT itself as 
the ALAC Members on the selection committee makes sense (perhaps 
augmented by one additional person from the Chair's region). The ALT 
is selected annually to represent the interests of the regions on the 
leadership team, already works well together and is geared up for 
quick responses. But that is open for discussion.

For appointments of Liaisons and any other positions that formally 
represent the ALAC, there is a strong (but not unanimous) belief in 
the ALT that such recommendations must be made by ALAC members. 
Ultimately, people recommended by this group must represent the ALAC 
and it is ALAC members that must pass judgement. Again, I think the 
ALT is an easy choice for but other alternatives are possible. I 
would have no problem with the RALO appointees also participating in 
the discussions, since they would already understand the 
confidentiality issues related to personnel selection.

Note that in all cases, the selection committee has the option of 
providing one or more candidates for the consideration of the ALAC, 
but with the assurance that all candidates presented to the ALAC meet 
at the very least the minimum requirements.

I would appreciate comments so we can refine this quickly and approve 
it in Helsinki. ALT Members who have varying opinions are of course 
welcome to clearly state their positions.


More information about the ALAC mailing list