[ALAC] ALAC Candidate Selection Committee

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Jun 13 20:03:42 UTC 2016

That is a given, unless the ALAC explicitly 
delegates a particular appointment to some other entity.

The proposal made below starts off with the 
statement that any selection committee only makes recommendations to the ALAC.


At 13/06/2016 04:00 AM, Sébastien Bachollet wrote:
>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>http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
>Mail: Sébastien Bachollet 
><<mailto:sebastien at bachollet.com>sebastien at bachollet.com>
>De : 
><<mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
>on behalf of Carlton Samuels 
><<mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
>Date : lundi 13 juin 2016 01:54
>À : Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Cc : ALAC <<mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>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 A Samuels
>Mobile: 876-818-1799
>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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.
>ALAC mailing list
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>ALAC mailing list 
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
>At-Large Online: 
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160613/0e635765/attachment.html>

More information about the ALAC mailing list