[EURO-Discuss] Fwd: Fwd: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Tue Jun 11 14:03:42 UTC 2019 

FYI - finalised version sent directly, plus contributed to the CPWG ALAC
process.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Fwd: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps
Date: 	Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:59:08 +0200
From: 	Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
To: 	Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>, Justine Chew
<justine.chew at gmail.com>
CC: 	cpwg at icann.org <cpwg at icann.org>



Dear Maureen and Justine,

I am writing to you to let you know of EURALO's response to the
questions asked. We were contacted directly by NomCom Review staff.
Having reviewed the ALAC's proposed response, I note that our answers
are broadly aligned.
Kindest regards,

Olivier


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps
Date: 	Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:48:10 +0200
From: 	Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
To: 	Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez at icann.org>
CC: 	Tom Barrett <tbarrett at encirca.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr
<langdonorr at gmail.com>, Zahid Jamil-IG (internet at jamilandjamil.com)
<internet at jamilandjamil.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann at icann.org>,
ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>



Dear Jean-Baptiste,

thank you for reaching out to EURALO. Please be so kind to find the
EURALO input to this consultation with responses interspersed in your
text below, written in BLUE.
This input is not meant to contradict the ALAC input on the matter, as
EURALO will support the ALAC's input. Although this input was prepared
independently of the ALAC's input, it should be taken as complementary
to the ALAC's advice.
If you have any question about any part of EURALO's response, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Kindest regards,

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
EURALO Chair


On 14/05/2019 16:51, Jean-Baptiste Deroulez wrote:
>
> Dear Olivier,
>
>  
>
> We are contacting you in the capacity of Chair and Vice-Chairs of the
> NomCom Review Implementation Working Group (NomComRIWG). Following the
> ICANN Board’s acceptance
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-14-en#2.f>of
> the Final Report
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.pdf>and
> the Feasibility Assessment and Initial Implementation Plan
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom2-ipt-review-faiip-14dec18-en.pdf>,
> we have been tasked to oversee the implementation of the twenty-seven
> (27) recommendations issued by the independent examiner.
>
>  
>
> Before implementation can begin, the Board has asked us to draft a
> Detailed Implementation Plan, due to be submitted to the Board’s
> Organizational Effectiveness Committee no later than 14 September 2019.
>
>  
>
> While the NomComRIWG has the Board-mandated responsibility to plan the
> implementation of the twenty-seven recommendations, we would welcome
> any and all feedback either as a single document from the EURALO or
> from individual members of the EURALO. All feedback will inform our
> drafting of the Detailed Implementation Plan.  We understand that you
> or the EURALO may not have the time to respond to all 27
> recommendations, so we have identified seven where your input would be
> most helpful.
>
>  
>
> Please, limit your response to the process you suggest we follow for
> each implementation rather than advocating for any specific outcome of
> the recommendation.
>
>  
>
> *We kindly ask you to provide us with your feedback no later than 10
> June 2019*. If you cannot respond by that time, but would like to
> provide input, please, let us know at your earliest convenience by
> when we can expect your feedback.
>
>  
>
> If you have any questions or concerns, either about the list of
> questions, or about any other aspect of the NomCom Review
> implementation, please, do not hesitate to reach out to us or any of
> ICANN’s support staff at any time.
>
>  
>
> Many thanks and best wishes,
>
>  
>
> Tom Barrett, Chair NomComRIWG
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG
>
> Zahid Jamal, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Cc: ALAC, ASO AC, ccNSO Council, GAC, GNSO Council, RSSAC, SSAC, NCSG,
> RrSG, RySG, BC, IPC, ISPCP, NCUC, NPOC, AFRALO, APRALO, EURALO,
> LACRALO, NARALO.
>
>
>  
>
>  1. *Recommendation 10*: Representation on the NomCom should be
>     re-balanced immediately and then be reviewed every five years.
>
>  
>
>   * What process, based on which principles, would you suggest for 
>     the implementation of this recommendation to rebalance the NomCom?
>     And, what criteria  should the overall allocation of all NomCom
>     seats among the SO/ACs be based on?
>

This really depends on the actual "balancing". The recommendation
suggests the creation of a working group that would be tasked with
undertaking an assessment and ultimately making recommendations for the
actual re-balancing.
The IPT suggests (2) rebalancing could be rotational. The difference in
balancing year on year will make this very complicated as the group
might not include the same balance of stakeholders and this is likely to
affect continuity. IPT suggestion (3) mentions the growth and expansion
of SO/ACs - we believe that one has to be careful that gaming the system
will not be used to multiply constituencies thus bringing more weight to
the NomCom from a particular group of constituencies. At this moment in
time, short of supporting a working group to take a deeper look at the
issue and to make recommendations, we can only support the process that
is currently suggested.

>  *
>
>
>  
>
>  2. *Recommendation 14*: Formalize communication between the NomCom
>     and the Board, SOs/ACs, and the PTI Board in order to understand
>     needed competencies and experience.
>
>  
>
>   * What process would you suggest to formalize the communicationof
>     the needed competencies and experiences of NomCom appointees to
>     your SO/AC?
>

This issue is not solely caused by lack of formalised communication. The
Nominating Committee meets with SOs and ACs asking what skills are
currently needed in their communities. But the way the question is asked
at present appears like asking a resident what size of pipe they would
like installed inside their house: they would have no idea. A
questionnaire asking the right questions, addressing specific topics,
could provide much more insights as to skill gaps in SOs, ACs and the
ICANN Board, than an open question "what type of profile do you need?"
It would also be helpful if the NomCom itself would publish its own
perception of perceived gaps in skill-sets and competencies on the
Board, as this can serve as a good starting point for discussions with
the community.

>  *
>
>
>  
>
>  3. *Recommendation 16*: Implement and codify a system for providing
>     feedback to the NomCom regarding the contributions and
>     participation of members up for re-appointment by the NomCom (i.e.
>     for the Board, PTI, GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO)
>
>  
>
>   * What process would you suggest to improve feedback to the NomCom
>     regarding the contribution and participation of NomCom-appointees
>     members that wish to apply forre-appointment by the NomCom?
>

The NomCom should be provided with full feedback from the body into
which it appointed a candidate, about that candidate's performance. This
feedback should be confidential to the NomCom so as to allow for a
candid assessment of that person's performance. Optionally, a NomCom
appointing a candidate to a position could store a rationale of specific
points/characteristics that resonated to appoint this candidate and this
rationale could be made available to a later NomCom that would have to
evaluate whether the expectations of that prior NomCom were fulfilled
regarding that candidate. This additional information could help with
the NomCom's decision to re-appoint a candidate.

>  *
>
>
>  
>
>  4. *Recommendation 24*: An empowered body of current and former
>     NomCom members should be formed to ensure greater continuity
>     across NomComs, and in particular, to recommend and assist in
>     implementing improvements to NomCom operations.
>
>  
>
>   * What process do you suggest should be put in place to help ensure
>     cross-community consensus on developing the Charter and formation
>     of this body? The Charter would address issues such as membership,
>     term-limits, number and allocation of seats.
>

This "empowered body" should be a cross community group composed of
members of the community appointed by their respective component
organisation, in the same manner as NomCom participants. Its membership
should be made up of the current NomCom chair plus a past NomCom Chair,
as well as past NomCom members across the community. The function of
this group should be to focus purely on procedural matters and should
not influence NomCom selections. Its primary function should be to make
recommendations for ICANN component organisations to act on. It should
also receive instructions from component organisations to implement
recommendations. In no way should it both recommend and implement
without the express agreement from NomCom component organisations.



>  *
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>  5. *Recommendation 25*: Improve NomCom selection decisions by
>     assessing the performance and needs of all bodies receiving NomCom
>     appointees.
>
>  
>
>   * What process would you suggest for your organization to inform and
>     improve future NomCom appointments?
>

Prior to searching for candidates, a questionnaire asking the right
questions, addressing specific topics, could provide much more insights
as to skill gaps in SOs, ACs and the ICANN Board than an open question
"what type of profile do you need?"
The SO/AC should also provide candid feedback to the NomCom about a
candidate's past performance. This, again, could also be done via a
questionnaire to the Chair of the body that the returning candidate has
been appointed to. Both questionnaires could be linked and compared so
as to find out of the original skills gap was competently fulfilled.
Ultimately a form of uniform feedback process, either through a specific
feedback form asking pertinent questions, or through a uniform 360 peer
review process used across all of ICANN, would help with comparing
performance of appointed candidates.

>  *
>
>
>  
>
>  6. *Recommendation 27*: Provide clarity on desire for and definition
>     of “independent directors”. Upon clarification of desire and
>     definition, determine the number of specific seats for
>     “independent directors”.
>
>  
>
> ·         What are your suggestions regarding the process of
> implementing of this recommendation?
>
>  
>

The notion of "independent directors" is misguided.
Whilst the NomCom selected directors can be part of the ICANN community,
all NomCom selected directors should be, as much as possible, unrelated
to the Domain Name industry. They should be completely un-conflicted for
all decisions of the ICANN Board and should not derive a direct income
from the domain name business. This is needed mainly to balance out
ICANN Board members appointed by SOs and ACs that are more likely to be
conflicted. Declaring a conflict of interest is not enough in this case.

---- end of contribution ---


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss/attachments/20190611/0523b960/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list