[ALAC] ALAC Candidate Selection Committee

Mon Jun 13 21:22:59 UTC 2016

But it was not in your proposal for GAC liaison
2. We delegate to the ALT the responsibility to appoint an interim
Liaison to the GAC to start in Helsinki.

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 :  Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Date :  lundi 13 juin 2016 22:03
À :  Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien at bachollet.com>, Carlton Samuels
<carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
Cc :  ALAC <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Objet :  Re: [ALAC] ALAC Candidate Selection Committee

> 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.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 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 /
>> Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien at bachollet.com >
>> 
>> De : < alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> <mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> > on behalf of Carlton Samuels
>> < carlton.samuels at gmail.com <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <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/20160613/2c0ae6a1/attachment.html>