AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Comment Close
Date		Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s) and
RALO(s)

Call for
Comments Open		Call for
Comments
Close 		Vote
Announcement 		Vote OpenVote 
Reminder		Vote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
23.05.2014Board Member CompensationADOPTED 13Y, 1N, 1AAlan Greenberg29.05.201404.06.2014 23:59 UTC06.06.2014 23:59 UTC06.06.2014 23:59 UTC10.06.201411.06.2014 23:59 UTC12.06.2014Amy Stathos amy.stathos@icann.orgAL-ALAC-ST-0614-01-00-EN


For information about this PC, please click here 

Comment / Reply Periods (*)
Comment Open Date: 
2 May 2014
Comment Close Date: 
23 May 2014 - 23:59 UTC
Reply Open Date: 
24 May 2014
Reply Close Date: 
12 June 2014 - 23:59 UTC
Important Information Links
Public Comment Announcement
To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
View Comments Submitted
Brief Overview
Originating Organization: 
ICANN Board
Categories/Tags: 
  • ICANN Board/Bylaws
Purpose (Brief): 

To seek public comment on Recommendations about Board member compensation, including the proposed Bylaws revisions that would allow non-voting Board liaisons to accept compensation if approved by the voting Board members.

Current Status: 

Board is awaiting conclusion of this Public Comment Period

Next Steps: 

Board Consideration of the Expert Recommendations and Public Comments

Staff Contact: 
Amy A. Stathos
Email Staff Contact
Detailed Information
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: 

The Board has committed to regularly review the reasonableness of Board member compensation. In furtherance of this commitment, the Board engaged the Independent Valuation Expert firm of Towers Watson to provide an updated report on the reasonableness of offering compensation to Board members, as well as the level of the offered compensation.

In addition, the Board has been considering whether to offer compensation to non-voting liaisons to the Board. Absent voting, Board liaisons are asked to spend the same amount of time and make the same level of commitment to the ICANN Board as the voting Board members.

The Independent Valuation Expert Report, and proposed Bylaws changes that would allow ICANN to offer compensation to non-voting Board liaisons, are being posted for public comment.

Section II: Background: 

Since August 2010, ICANN's Board chair has had the opportunity to elect compensation, and since December 2011, all voting members of ICANN's Board have had the choice whether to accept compensation. The resolutions approving such compensation can be found athttp://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-05aug10-en.htm#5 andhttp://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08dec11-en.htm#3, respectively. The decision to consider and approve compensation for Board members followed long-term on-going discussions, including with the community, and was recommended by the Boston Consulting Group ("BCG") that conducted the Board Review some years ago and by the first Accountability and Transparency Review Team ("ATRT"), among others.

In initially approving, and now reviewing, Board member compensation for voting Board members other than the President and CEO of ICANN (who is compensated pursuant to contract) or the Chair of theICANN Board (for whom no change in compensation level is recommended), it continues to be imperative that the Board follow a process calculated to pay an amount that is in its entirety Reasonable Compensation for Board services under the standards set forth in §53.4958-4(b) of the Treasury Regulations. The Board has followed particular steps throughout its consideration process to ensure continued establishment and evaluation of Reasonable Compensation.

Section III: Document and Resource Links: 
Section IV: Additional Information: 

N/A

(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

Please click here to download a copy of the pdf below.

 

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The ALAC wishes to go on record as strongly supporting the comment submitted by Alan Greenberg - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-compensation-02may14/msg00003.html.


FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The ALAC believes that, subject to a number of related considerations, it is reasonable to compensate Board members, including Liaisons, and the level of compensation suggested is reasonable.

We note that in the name of simplification, the report suggests an increase for Board members who are not Board Committee Chairs by as much as 29%.

However, the related considerations mentioned above, in my mind, cannot be ignored.

1.      One of the reasons always sited for such compensation is that having no compensation limits the available candidates who will make themselves available for the ICANN Board. Given that there has never been an AC/SO seat vacant due to lack of candidates, there is often competition for such seats, and the Nominating Committee regularly says that it has had to make very difficult decisions in selecting Board members since there was a surplus of eminently qualified candidates, in the name of transparency and accountability, it would be good to see hard evidence of the rationale.

2.      The introduction of Board compensation widened the gulf between Board members and other volunteers within ICANN. The proposed change widens that gulf further. There is no question that many Board members work very hard on behalf of ICANN, and that dedication eats into their other professional activities and personal life. However, the same can be said for many ICANN volunteers. There are many in the community who work equally hard and dedicate the same kind of hours as Board members. Indeed, it has been claimed that many in the community put in far more time and effort than some Board members. We believe that this claim is accurate.

SO and AC Chairs have been identified as meeting the above levels of commitment, and indeed many or perhaps all do. However, there are others who do not receive the existing benefits given to Board members and AC/SO Chairs who also dedicate unending hours and effort to ICANN.

Board and now Liaison compensation without any new consideration of the contributions of others denigrates the efforts of the rest of the ICANN volunteers. Such acknowledgment need not be financial compensation – there are a host of other benefits that Board members get that other volunteers (and Chairs) would really appreciate.

Although the ALAC understands the difficulty of identifying those who put Herculean efforts into ICANN from those who are lower level contributors, we cannot continue to widen the gulf between the privileged few and the rest of volunteers and expect there not to be repercussions.

 

  • No labels

8 Comments

  1. Alan Greenberg

    I have posted the following statement to the PC.

    I am a member of the ALAC and the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, but I am making this comment purely in my own capacity.

    I believe that, subject to a number of related considerations, it is reasonable to compensate Board members, including Liaisons, and the level of compensation suggested is reasonable.

    I do note that in the name of simplification, the report suggests an increase for Board members who are not Board Committee Chairs by as much as 29%.

    However, the related considerations mentioned above, in my mind, cannot be ignored.

    1.      One of the reasons always sited for such compensation is that having no compensation limits the available candidates who will make themselves available for the ICANN Board. Given that there has never been an AC/SO seat vacant due to lack of candidates, there is often competition for such seats, and the Nominating Committee regularly says that it has had to make very difficult decisions in selecting Board members since there was a surplus of eminently qualified candidates, in the name of transparency and accountability, it would be good to see hard evidence of the rationale.

    2.      The introduction of Board compensation widened the gulf between Board members and other volunteers within ICANN. The proposed change widens that gulf further. There is no question that many Board members work very hard on behalf of ICANN, and that dedication eats into their other professional activities and personal life. However, the same can be said for many ICANN volunteers. There are many in the community who work equally hard and dedicate the same kind of hours as Board members. Indeed, it has been claimed that many in the community put in far more time and effort than some Board members. I believe that this claim is accurate.

    SO and AC Chairs have been identified as meeting the above levels of commitment, and indeed many or perhaps all do. However, there are others who do not receive the existing benefits given to Board members and AC/SO Chairs who also dedicate unending hours and effort to ICANN.

    Board and now Liaison compensation without any new consideration of the contributions of others denigrates the efforts of the rest of the ICANN volunteers. Such acknowledgment need not be financial compensation – there are a host of other benefits that Board members get that other volunteers (and Chairs) would really appreciate.

    Although I understand the difficulty of identifying those who put Herculean efforts into ICANN from those who are lower level contributors, we cannot continue to widen the gulf between the privileged few and the rest of volunteers and expect there not to be repercussions.

     

    1. Vanda Scartezini

      I totally agree with the main text. I personally had worked much more in other lower positions as chair of Nominating Committee or even Vice Chair of ALAC, or Vice Chair of GAC, for instance, than I had done in the Board, and let me remember at that time Board was almost an executive group dealing with several detailed issues than they do now ( which is correct, no misunderstanding here) but that situation added a lot of work on our day by day activities. We had no compensation but we believed Chair should  get such compensation. Hence,  I do agree that other chairs - SOs, ACs and Nominating Committee  should have more advantages,at least, than they have nowadays, before we spend more money with the Board itself.   Money may not the only compensation we can offer to these time consuming positions...just expressing my own views. 

  2. Alan Greenberg

    I now have clarity that I was supposed to take my statement and (generically) change the I's to We's. I will do that.

    If there are comments that cause the ALAC statement to diverge from this one, I do not bleeive it would be good optics for me to be the formal pen-holder of the new statement.

  3. Alan Greenberg

    Note that this statement was significantly changed from the earlier version distributed to the ALAC Internal list in that the focus on volunteer compensation was removed and more on other benefits to show that heavy-workload volunteers are appreciated.

  4. Maureen Hilyard

    As mentioned by others, much of the groundwork and information that ICANN requires in order to do its work - creating policies and other necessary outputs - is provided by volunteers.Many of the volunteers who put in hours of time and effort that are required by working groups and meetings, are from lowly-paid developing economies but they realise the importance of their inputs above any financial compensation. Despite ICANN-sponsored meeting attendance, travelling to these events is a huge personal cost for these volunteers who do not have even a small percentage of the financial resources of many of our Board members. In this light, the proposal for an increase in compensation for the Board can hardly be viewed favourably. If extra funds are available, then I agree with the already stated support for compensation for Chairs of SOs/ACs/NomCom. We have our own Chair as an example of the huge commitment of time and effort that is required to keep his finger on the pulse of ALAC activities. Put the funds where they deserve to go. 

  5. Alan Greenberg

    The At-Large comment period now closed and in my mind, I have not seen any suggestion of substantive change.

    Although there is no difference in content, I think that it would look better having the ALAC support my submission rather than echoing the exact same words as if there were being invented anew. But it is a matter of style which I will leave to the Chair and ALT to decide which the ALAC votes on.

    If a simple statement of support of were to be submitted, it could be of the following form: "The ALAC wished to go on record as strongly supporting the comment submitted by Alan Greenberg - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-compensation-02may14/msg00003.html."

  6. Alan Greenberg

    Olivier has agreed that since there were no substantive suggestions for changing the statement, we should just go with the affirmation of support.

  7. Jahangir Hossain

    Agree with Maureen Hilyard +