[ALAC] Fwd: NomCom selection of ALAC Members

[Yrjö Länsipuro]

Dear Alan, all,


Under this thread heading, two related  but separate issues have been discussed: 1) The quality of people proposed by the RALO’s as ALAC delegates in the NomCom and 2) the choices made by NomCom for ALAC.



>From my NomCom experience 2011-2016, I can say that, by and large,  RALO choices for NomCom delegates were well qualified for their duty. I don’t recall cases where a RALO would have sent inexperienced people to the NomCom.



In many ways (confidentiality, increasing collegiality during the cycle) NomCom differs from other cross-community environments. New NomCom members from the ALAC might benefit from mentoring by those who have been there before, as far as processes and tactics are concerned. But once they are on the NomCom, nobody – not even their “home organization”  - should try to influence their choices.  That’s at least my reading of what the independence of the NomCom means.



 But when it comes to NomCom selections for ALAC,  the five ALAC delegates have no special mandate or influence. These decisions, like others, are collectively made by the NomCom, and don’t always fall the way the ALAC delegates would like to see them happen. Thus, ALAC delegates should not necessarily be blamed for bad decisions.



One of the the problems is that selections for the Board are the main focus of the NomCom. Less attention and time is given to the SO/AC selections. Sometimes candidates, who just failed to make it to the Board, might be put on SO/AC slots without regard to their special requirements. Not exactly as consolation prizes...sometimes in the hope that they would grow and graduate in the Board role, their first choice... That is why a  set of requirements for NomCom appointed ALAC members is an excellent idea.  Details don't matter too much, because in the end, the NomCom is pretty free to select what criteria to apply.


When I was the NomCom Chair, ALAC leadership used to tell me that they want, most of all, people who are not afraid to work, ie., to actually write drafts for ALAC statements.  Perhaps this could also be reflected in the written requirements.


Best,


Yrjö























________________________________
From: ALAC <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 6:14 AM
To: ALAC
Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: NomCom selection of ALAC Members

I have received nothing so far in reply to this message. I will be
reaching out to a few people to help me adjust these documents, but
all input is welcome to try to ensure that applicants know what they
are getting themselves into.

The deadline is the start of next week.

Alan

>Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:48 -0400
>To: ALAC <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Subject: NomCom selection of ALAC Members
>
>The NomCom selects five ALAC members and over the years, some have
>done well and others not.
>
>The documentation used in the last year is attached. I am asking
>whether there is still time to revise it for the coming year. I
>suspect that if the answer is yes, time will be tight.
>
>I am interested in putting together a very small drafting team to
>consider such revisions.
>
>Alan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20171206/bc242eb6/attachment.html>