[ALAC] ALAC Candidate Selection Committee

Tue Jun 14 01:51:26 UTC 2016

I was trying to keep the generic selection 
committee separate from the GAC Liaison issue, but point taken.  Alan

At 13/06/2016 05:22 PM, Sébastien Bachollet wrote:
>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>http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
>Mail: Sébastien Bachollet 
><<mailto:sebastien at bachollet.com>sebastien at bachollet.com>
>
>De : Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Date : lundi 13 juin 2016 22:03
>À : Sébastien Bachollet 
><<mailto:sebastien at bachollet.com>sebastien at bachollet.com>, 
>Carlton Samuels <<mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
>Cc : ALAC <<mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>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>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
>>
>>==============================
>>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.
>>Alan
>>_______________________________________________
>>ALAC mailing list
>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________ 
>>ALAC mailing list 
>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 
>>At-Large Online: 
>><http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org 
>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>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/20160613/58ffad39/attachment.html>