[ALAC] ALAC Candidate Selection Committee

Mon Jun 13 08:00:16 UTC 2016

I agree with Carlton on the fact that any appointment must be a decision of
the full ALAC.

Skills are useful but diversity is essential.

Sébastien Bachollet
+33 6 07 66 89 33
Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien at bachollet.com>

De :  <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels
<carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
Date :  lundi 13 juin 2016 01:54
À :  Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Cc :  ALAC <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Objet :  Re: [ALAC] ALAC Candidate Selection Committee

> 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>>
)
> 
> _______________________________________________ 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/20160613/706c4738/attachment.html>