[ALAC] Fwd: NomCom selection of ALAC Members

Thu Dec 7 02:38:16 UTC 2017

I fully endorse what Yrjö has pointed out.

ALAC representatives to the NomCom have generally been able to perform well
(considering the various workload-related and other constraints).
Evaluation of the performance of each NomCom member is publicly available
in case the sending AC/SOs want to track/monitor it.

The performance of NomCom appointees is quite another thing. As already
pointed out, no individual member of the NomCom has any special influence
over the selection process. The performance of NomCom appointees would,
therefore, be a metric for the NomCom as a whole.

satish

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
wrote:

> From someone who knows... Thank you Yrjo
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/di
>> splay/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/20171207/609ed472/attachment.html>