[ALAC] ALAC Candidate Selection Committee

Sun Jun 12 23:54:25 UTC 2016

First, let's ground the discussion in what the ALAC is; a 15-member body,
ten (10) of whom are selected by the broad At-Large membership via means
not always above reproach and five (5) selected by the NomCom from a wider
set of criteria, including some connected to landmass.

While we may not think so, the takeaway here is that the structure of the
ALAC itself is intended to be broadly representative of the At-Large
interests, howsover those are intuited or understood in the several regions.

Seems to me the three (3) overarching criteria of importance for any ALAC
appointment are 1) the appointees desire to serve 2) The appointee's
capacity to serve 3) The appointee's qualifications for service.

It is my view that for some positions, #'s 2 & 3 are of heightened
importance. For example, a liaison must have the capacity to understand and
accept that s/he is an ambassador to the receiving agency or group, there
representing the views of the appointing agency, in this case the ALAC.

In the case of ALAC-endorsed membership in WGs, especially CCWGs and other
such structures, the requirement is the person holding brief must
understand that it is the representation of the interests of the At-Large
as generally understood that takes precedence. Broad domain or subject
knowledge is then the preeminent attribute. This is not to say deep
knowledge is not required. The political analogy is like this: you do not
take the ALAC whip but may vote with the ALAC. The acceptance of the
diversity of At-Large interests, which may actually project a variety of
views, is a good substrate for action. And it is the fair projection and
airing of those views that are of heightened importance.  I can think of
the CCT RT as the perfect example.

I would make the NomCom endorsed-membership a special case.  I will not go
into my views on that here and now.

On balance, I am unanimous:

1. Liaisons should be appointed by the ALAC on recommendation of the ALT
2. All others may be recommended by a Selection Committee to the ALAC for
endorsement

The Selection Committee may have a broader membership than the ALT and
could include members not of the ALAC.

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> Alan
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160612/5fd40d94/attachment.html>