<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div><div><div>But it was not in your proposal for GAC liaison</div><div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">2. We delegate to the ALT the responsibility to appoint an interim </div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">Liaison to the GAC to start in Helsinki.</div></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"><br></div><div><div><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"><font color="#007f00">Skills are useful but diversity is essential.</font></i></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="rgb(0, 0, 0)"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri"><br></font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="rgb(0, 0, 0)"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Sébastien Bachollet</font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="rgb(0, 0, 0)"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">+33 6 07 66 89 33</font></font></div><div>Blog: <a href="http://sebastien.bachollet.fr">http://sebastien.bachollet.fr</a>/</div><div>Mail: <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; font-family: Calibri;">Sébastien Bachollet <<a href="mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com">sebastien@bachollet.com</a>></span></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">De : </span> Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date : </span> lundi 13 juin 2016 22:03<br><span style="font-weight:bold">À : </span> Sébastien Bachollet <<a href="mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com">sebastien@bachollet.com</a>>, Carlton Samuels <<a href="mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com">carlton.samuels@gmail.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc : </span> ALAC <<a href="mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org">alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Objet : </span> Re: [ALAC] ALAC Candidate Selection Committee<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><div><div>
That is a given, unless the ALAC explicitly delegates a particular
appointment to some other entity.<br><br>
The proposal made below starts off with the statement that any selection
committee only makes recommendations to the ALAC.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 13/06/2016 04:00 AM, Sébastien Bachollet wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">I agree with Carlton on the fact
that any appointment must be a decision of the full ALAC.<br><br><font color="#007F00"><i>Skills are useful but diversity is
essential.<br></i></font><font face="Calibri"><br>
Sébastien Bachollet<br>
+33 6 07 66 89 33<br></font>Blog:
<a href="http://sebastien.bachollet.fr">http://sebastien.bachollet.fr</a>
/<br>
Mail: Sébastien Bachollet
<<a href="mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com">sebastien@bachollet.com</a>
><br><br>
De :
<<a href="mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>> on behalf of Carlton Samuels
<<a href="mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com">
carlton.samuels@gmail.com</a>><br>
Date : lundi 13 juin 2016 01:54<br>
À : Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
><br>
Cc : ALAC
<<a href="mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>><br>
Objet : Re: [ALAC] ALAC Candidate Selection Committee<br><br><dl><dd>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.<br><br></dd><dd>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.<br><br></dd><dd>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.
<br><br></dd><dd>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. <br><br></dd><dd>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.<br><br></dd><dd>I would make the NomCom endorsed-membership a special case. I
will not go into my views on that here and now.<br><br></dd><dd>On balance, I am unanimous:<br><br></dd><dd>1. Liaisons should be appointed by the ALAC on recommendation of the
ALT<br></dd><dd>2. All others may be recommended by a Selection Committee to the ALAC
for endorsement<br><br></dd><dd>The Selection Committee may have a broader membership than the ALT
and could include members not of the ALAC. <br><br></dd><dd>-Carlton<br><br><br></dd><dd>==============================<br></dd><dd>Carlton A Samuels<br></dd><dd>Mobile: 876-818-1799<br></dd><dd><font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment
& Turnaround</font><br></dd><dd>=============================<br><br></dd><dd>On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br><dl><dd>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.<br><br></dd><dd>There are generally two kinds of positions that we consider:<br><br></dd><dd>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).<br><br></dd><dd>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.<br><br></dd><dd>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.<br><br></dd><dd>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.<br><br></dd><dd>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.<br><br></dd><dd>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.<br><br></dd><dd>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.<br><br></dd><dd>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.<br><br></dd><dd>Alan<br><br></dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br></dd><dd>ALAC mailing list<br></dd><dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br></dd><dd><a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br></dd><dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a><br></dd><dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a><br><br></dd></dl><br></dd><dd>_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a> At-Large
Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a><br></dd></dl></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></span></body></html>