[At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination

[Yassin Mshana]

I also agree with what Eva has said and stated.
I think regional representation is not enough - 
The composition of Board Membership should also be more 'inclusive' by selecting Directors from a wider range of stakeholders.
'Diversity' should mean the acknowledgement of the Laws and Regulations as globally as practically possible (I asked about this issue at the Mar de Plata meeting - I am still naive and not a Law person).
Yassin  

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:26:01 -0400
From: DThompson at gov.nu.ca
To: at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination




Message body




I must agree with everything Evan said here - couldn't have said it better!
 
D
 

Darlene A. Thompson
CAP Administrator
Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP
P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910
Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
Phone:  (867) 975-5631
Fax:  (867) 975-5610
E-mail:  dthompson at gov.nu.ca



From: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Sat 8/21/2010 11:01 AM
To: At-Large Worldwide
Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination



On 21 August 2010 10:12, Khaled KOUBAA <khaled.koubaa at topnet.tn> wrote:


> I know that you are one of those that have always defended non-English
> speakers. But here I am not understanding you very well.
> 1- we are not here speaking about gender nor racial nor diversity on other
> basis rather the first and more important element imposed by the bylaws
> which the regional balance.
>


That is a worthy mandate imposed on ICANN itself, but not specifically on
At-Large. The NomCom has an obligation to ensure regional balance, and it is
able to select many Directors in order to achieve that balance.

By contrast, At-Large can only choose one, fully independent of the
diversity initiatives which the NomCom must already consider. We cannot be
making our decision of Board representative while (at the same time)
worrying if we must correct what might be perceived as a deficiency of
diversity in the NomComm selections.



> 2- I don't consider the regional balance as "Lux" but it is "vital"
>


I am in complete agreement that it is vital for the ICANN Board as a whole,
but it is a luxury for the single solitary selection that At-Large is forced
to make.


> 3- I am sure that you agree that there is may be someone in "Less
> Considered Regions" the "Best possible advocate".
>


Of that, I have no doubt at all.

I am saying that being the "best possible advocate" must be the primary
criterion (and maybe even the only one for this first selection), regardless
of where the candidate lives.


I have seen many "non insider" new board member appointed by NomCom
> becoming very strong board members.
>


I agree. Indeed, I am hoping that some very worthy people step forward to be
considered. (Usually the NomnComm receives many many applications for Board
positions. I wonder how many of them might be suitable as an At-Large
designee?)

However I am (strongly) against the notion that we eliminate from
consideration (either procedurally or mentally) people who have a record of
work as an ICANN volunteer simply because of that involvement. If anything,
an ICANN history offers a relatively easy way to verify a nominee's claim of
being worthy for the role. Such an open history could even work against
someone's candidacy -- but it must not disqualify them.

- Evan
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org


_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org