| Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) | Call for Comments Open | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open | Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21.10.2014 | Board Working Group Report on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) | ADOPTED 14Y, 0N, 0A | Eduardo Diaz | 17.09.2014 | 07.10.2014 23:59 UTC | 09.10.2014 23:59 UTC | 09.10.2014 23:59 UTC | 15.10.2014 | 16.10.2014 20:00 UTC | 16.10.2014 21:00 UTC | Larisa Gurnick, Director Strategic Initiatives | TBC |
FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
Please click here to download a copy of the pdf document below.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposed recommendations submitted by the Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) regarding size and composition of the Nominating Committee (NomCom), as well as recruitment and selection functions.
The report contains an innovative delegative voting process in Recommendation #8, which, according to its rationale, improves parity and promotes deliberation and consensus building within the organizations represented in the NomCom. ALAC believes that this recommendation is potentially destabilizing and complex for a process that has worked well in the past. For example, in the last four years, each NomCom has taken a formal vote only once, to confirm the final slate, and every year the decision has been unanimous. We recommend deferring Recommendation #8 at this time and it to be re-evaluated in a future NomCom review.
The changes in the member composition in Recommendations #1 and #3, voting rights in Recommendation #7 and GNSO normalization in Recommendation #2 provide a welcome modification that enhances diversity and parity.
ALAC supports a staggered 2-year and term limit for its members included in Recommendation #9. However it should clearly state that, in addition to allowing the NomCom to remove any member by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of its members, the appointing organizations may also remove any of its NomCom representatives according to their rules and procedures. The report needs to be specific on transition rules from the old structure to the new one. For example, are groups allowed to re-appoint someone who has already served 1 or 2 years?
ALAC supports Recommendation #10 regarding expanding the scope outside of the ICANN community for the selection of the NomCom Chair as this will expand the pool of qualified candidates, but adds the caution that bringing in someone with no ICANN NomCom experience and no substantive knowledge of ICANN might be counter-productive.
The rationale on the removal of the Chair-Elect provided in Recommendation #12 has merit, but the concept of a Chair-in-training or Chair-in-waiting is quite compelling. Perhaps the Associate-Chair should be a Board-appointed position and could be a possible future Chair, but with no presumption of such succession.
The interim chair process included in Recommendation #12 needs to be clarified and specific to avoid misunderstandings. For example, the pool of “delegation heads” is a term that is not defined anywhere in the report and it should be. Also, the use of “could” implies that the appointment of an interim Chair is an optional action in case of unforeseen vacancy in the Chair position. This should be mandatory. Otherwise it could lead to instability also. Another option to be considered is keeping the current three member NomCom Leadership Team. This way the NomCom may be able to continue without inducting new members even if one member drops out by any chance.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposed recommendations submitted by the Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) regarding size and composition of the Nominating Committee (NomCom), as well as recruitment and selection functions.
The report contains an innovative delegative voting process in Recommendation #8, which, according to its rationale, improves parity and promotes deliberation and consensus building within the organizations represented in the NomCom. ALAC believes that this recommendation is potentially destabilizing and complex for a process that has worked well in the past. For example, in the last four years, each NomCom has taken a formal vote only once, to confirm the final slate, and every year the decision has been unanimous. We recommend deferring Recommendation #8 at this time and it to be re-evaluated in a future NomCom review.
The changes in the member composition in Recommendations #1 and #3, voting rights in Recommendation #7 and GNSO normalization in Recommendation #2 provide a welcome modification that enhances diversity and parity.
ALAC supports a staggered 2-year and term limit for its members included in Recommendation #9. However it should clearly state that, in addition to allowing the NomCom to remove any member by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of its members, the appointing organizations may also remove any of its NomCom representatives according to their rules and procedures. The report needs to be specific on transition rules from the old structure to the new one. For example, are groups allowed to re-appoint someone who has already served 1 or 2 years?
ALAC supports Recommendation #10 regarding expanding the scope outside of the ICANN community for the selection of the NomCom Chair as this will expand the pool of qualified candidates, but adds the caution that bringing in someone with no ICANN NomCom experience and no substantive knowledge of ICANN might be counter-productive.
The rationale on the removal of the Chair-Elect provided in Recommendation #12 has merit, but the concept of a Chair-in-training or Chair-in-waiting is quite compelling. Perhaps the Associate-Chair should be a Board-appointed position and could be a possible future Chair, but with no presumption of such succession.
The interim chair process included in Recommendation #12 needs to be clarified and specific to avoid misunderstandings. For example, the pool of “delegation heads” is a term that is not defined anywhere in the report and it should be. Also, the use of “could” implies that the appointment of an interim Chair is an optional action in case of unforeseen vacancy in the Chair position. This should be mandatory. Otherwise it could lead to instability also. Another option to be considered is keeping the current three member NomCom Leadership Team. This way the NomCom may be able to continue without inducting new members even if one member drops out by any chance.
28 Comments
Alan Greenberg
I have not had the time to review the report thoroughly, but I would like to offer some initial thoughts.
Overall I find the report quite thoughtful and balanced. It is a welcome alternative to the sometimes off-the-wall reports we have seen from outside consultants.
With the exception of the term length for those appointed to the NomCom, little changes from an ALAC perspective, which is not the case for several other AC/SOs.
Rec 1 & 2 - AC/SO representation.
They are keeping the regional balance for ALAC, adding it for ASO and ccNSO, and eliminating the historic lack of balance between the GNSO Commercial SG and other SGs. All good in my mind. The The GNSO Commercial SG will likely disagree.
Rec 8 - Voting by Delegation
I am not familiar with exactly how NomCom votes are conducted now, but this strikes me a significant departure. And giving the five ALAC members three votes is interesting. It clear will require that they work together, probably a good thing if that is not already happening. I do wonder if it gives too much power to lone hold-outs in the group is divided. But I do like the idea.
Rec 9 - Two year terms
I think that this is very reasonable, but do have a concern that although a member may resign, there is no mechanism for the ALAC to recall someone (other than coercion to resign).
Rec 12 - Chair Succession Planning
There is a reference to the Board naming and interim Chair in the case of a vacancy, from the pool of "delegation heads" - a term that is not mentioned elsewhere. Presumably that will be clarified in the next version.
Carlton Samuels
Sylvia Herlein Leite
dear Carlton:
let me ask you, what do you mean with "the ALAC may have to reconsider and review it process for NomCom appointments" What do you sugest will be the process? Any idea?
warm regards,
sylvia
Eduardo Diaz
The first draft will be available for comments before the end of next week, i.e. 12/09/14.
Alan Greenberg
Thanks Eduardo. I will try to get any further comments from me well before then. I have just sat through a GNSO meeting on this subject with George Sadowsky, and have a few additional insights.
Eduardo Diaz
Thank you. I am going to circulate the first draft between whoever have commented here before posting it in the wiki.
Alan Greenberg
A couple of more things to possibly include:
1. We might (and it is a politically sensitive thing) want to be more explicit in our support of changing representation to move towards parity between parts of ICANN. Specifically the change to reduce the representation of the GNSO Commercial Stakeholders Group is going to be fiercely objected to by them. We might want to explicitly support this change - it is just the result of meekness of the Board at the time the GNSO was reorganized. Or we could take the less controversial position and be silent on that detail.
2. A comment on the lack of Chair-Elect. Although the rational provided has merit, the potential for a chair being appointed with no previous ICANN NomCom experience could lead to instability which should be considered.
3. The report needs to be specific on transition rules from the old structure to the new one. Specifically in going from a total of 2 year maximum contiguous term to 4 years, are groups allowed to re-appoint someone who has already served 1 or 2 years.
Yrjo Lansipuro
I can't avoid the impression that the BWG is not familiar with how NomCom at present operates. Instead of a UN-style body where representatives of different constituencies fight tooth and nail for "their" candidates and finally settle the dispute by majority vote, it is (or at least, has recently been) a group of independent, responsible people who gradually become integrated as a collegial team with a common purpose: to come on a consensus and find the best possible people for the leadership positions available.
Actually, for the last four years, each NomCom has taken a formal vote only once, to confirm the final slate, and every year the decision has been unanimous. Before that point, straw polls are taken. But the most important part have been deliberations, frank and absolutely confidential discussions of the merits of the candidates.
Increasing the size of the NomCom to close to thirty and introducing "delegations" and "delegation heads" and elaborate voting rules would be a big step away from the approach that has worked well, towards a theoretical, untested construction that may or may not work. Probably the latter.
On the face of it, it looks fine, inclusive and democratic to expand regional representation to ASO and ccNSO. However, this in itself will not improve the regional balance of ICANN leadership (Board, SO's or ALAC),if the candidate pool does not offer that possibility. Real improvement would come from well-resourced outreach and recruitment efforts, not from tinkering with the membership of the NomCom.
I'm also amazed that the experiment with a Chair-Elect is proposed to be dumped after three years without any public evaluation of its merits. At least for the last couple of years, this approach has worked extremely well in preparing the future Chairs for their tasks.
To end on a positive note, the suggestions to treat SSAC and RSSAC representatives in the same way as everybody else, and to introduce two-year terms, are to be commended.
Alan Greenberg
Yrjo, although I would try to speak on behalf of Eduardo, I can't see how we could attribute most of your comments to the ALAC, so it would be difficult to integrate your thoughts into an ALAC statement. However, given you NomCom history, what you have to say is really important!
If you haven't already done so, please make this statement, or something similar, directly to the Public Comment.
Alan
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Really? I felt that Yrjö's additions were spot on.
The concept of voting by delegation is deeply flawed since (1) the NomCom works by consensus and (2) the NomCom looks for the best candidates and NomCom members from the same SO/AC might (often) have different views. This is not the UN where "delegations" are given top down instructions!
I also find the removal of the Chair Elect position unfortunate although I do not have a suggestion to improve on the uncertainty of having a Chair Elect that might or might not end Chairing the next year's NomCom.
I'd also like to point out that as the ALAC we have probably more NomCom experience than any other SO/AC under the same banner. The recommendations should be looked at by our past NomCom reps who have the knowledge on how the NomCom works. Right now, the BWG's NomCom recommendations is a recipe for head-aches within the NomCom.
Olivier
Alan Greenberg
Olivier,
Actually, I agree with most (or perhaps all) of Yrjo's comments, but I wasn't sure that they fit in an ALAC statement where the majority of people have never experienced the NomCom from the inside.
Based on your comment, perhaps I was a bit rash in my original position. I tend to agree that your statement on delegations has merit and should be considered by Eduardo.
The comment on the Chair-elect is already there, but perhaps need to be refined.
Some of the recommendations in the report, I believe have significant merit (including the increased representation of the ccNSO, giving the RSAC and SSAC members voting rights, and normalizing the GNSO Representations (which Eduardo has chosen to omit presumably to not upset the GNSO), and keeping the ALAC, GNSO and ccNSO appointees. So we need to be careful to not trash the report entirely
I still believe that Yrjo should comment to the PC in his own right.
Eduardo Diaz
Alan:
I should have been more explicit with the comment: ‘The changes in the member composition provide a welcome modification that enhances diversity’. When I did the first time I meant to include not only the increase in diversity (i.e ccNSO increase) but also in the increase of voting rights and normalization of the GNSO representation. This I will make more explicit.
-ed
Yrjo Lansipuro
Of course, my comments stem from my own experience and as such can't be part on an ALAC statement. However, I hope that some reference can be made to concerns I expressed.
Eduardo Diaz
@All:
I have read your comments and will put a new version shortly I think there is merit in what Yrjo is saying with regards to voting by delegation and its complexity. I did participate in the NomCom for two year and I can attest how well consensus worked during my term. I was under the impression that voting by delegation will bring more parity to the equation but for what I see apparently there can not be consensus when you have delegations, i.e with delegations there is voting only.
It is unfortunate that only a few of the many members that we have sent to the NomCom have participated in this thread.
@Alan:
I will really appreciate if you can enhance the part that has to do with the Chair-elect. Just wait until I put the new version.
Gracias.
-ed
Eduardo Diaz
All:
I have revised the initial draft and incorporated some of the additional comments. Please check it out. I will appreciate if you can validate some of my english semantics.
-ed
Alan Greenberg
I like the way this discussion and the statement is going, and have a number of comments.
Paragraph 4: At the very end, it should be years instead of year.
Paragraph 5, I suggest a small wording change and adding a caution similar to the one in the next paragraph:
For paragraph 6 on the Chair Elect, I have some problem with the current wording. The concept of Chair Elect allowed someone to essentially be "tested". That implied, however, that if they failed the "test", they would not be confirmed which led to the problems described in the report. The current form our our statement leads to the opposite problem. If the Chair Elect must become the next Chair, we have the problem of someone who really messes up as Chair Elect being confirmed anyway. Also, since the report suggests a 2-year term for Chair and a possibility of a 2nd term, the "Chair-Elect" title really does not make sense.
The report mentions an "Associate Chair" but makes no statement about how the person is selected or what the role is. I think (but am not 100% sure) that currently the Chair can name anyone they want as the non-voting Associate Chair.
I suggest that we take a far more flexible position. Here is possible wording:
Eduardo Diaz
My comments in this color.
---0---
Paragraph 4: At the very end, it should be years instead of year.
Good catch!
Paragraph 5, I suggest a small wording change and adding a caution similar to the one in the next paragraph:
This suggestion has been included verbatim
For paragraph 6 on the Chair Elect, I have some problem with the current wording. The concept of Chair Elect allowed someone to essentially be "tested". That implied, however, that if they failed the "test", they would not be confirmed which led to the problems described in the report. The current form our our statement leads to the opposite problem. If the Chair Elect must become the next Chair, we have the problem of someone who really messes up as Chair Elect being confirmed anyway. Also, since the report suggests a 2-year term for Chair and a possibility of a 2nd term, the "Chair-Elect" title really does not make sense.
The report mentions an "Associate Chair" but makes no statement about how the person is selected or what the role is. I think (but am not 100% sure) that currently the Chair can name anyone they want as the non-voting Associate Chair.
I suggest that we take a far more flexible position. Here is possible wording:
For what I understand the Associated Chair is someone that helps the Chair with NomCom chores. It is my impression that the person can also help in directing anyone of the meetings if for some reason the Chair is not available at the moment but I may be wrong here (maybe Yrjo or Cheryl may want to comment on this). Having said that, I think the idea that you bring to the table is appropriate for it does not increase the number of members and it gives the associated chair a more definitive role.
-ed
Glenn McKnight
The expansion of the representation to the NOMCOM makes sense as to the democratic process, the challenge is the logistics and efficiency of the group. A very large group produces serious challenges. Not sure if its realistic to select a GAC rep out of the various groups
If we are looking at expanding representation on NOMCOM I would suggest a effort to embrace the disabled communities so that their insights on diversity from valid stakeholder communities. We make a special effort to have gender and geographical representation on the board but we fail to consider the importance of the disabled community on the board, Since over 10% of the population is disabled
The idea of two year terms for the ALAC rep is a logical recommendation
Alan Greenberg
Glenn, unless I am missing something, following your suggestion would imply that the NomCom questionnaire include questions about whether and how an applicant is disabled. Is that correct?
I am certainly not an expert, but I suspect that this might even be illegal under California law.
Glenn McKnight
I think we spend alot of time on equity but it tends to focus only on gender without consideration of other valid groups. We have in the NOMCOM process clear self identification of gender. No option not to answer this question nor a Transgender category. On the self identified disable issue we could look at the optional self-identification of being a member of the disabled community, especially if they add value added to the discussion of inclusion
Glenn McKnight
On the issue of Associate Chair as a historical or archivist resource person to the process. I think this is a redundant position if staff is adequately trained to do this process. A position that can be eliminated.
As to the NOMCOM evaluation of the performance of the Chair and the Chair Elect has been poor in the past since the review of the Chair Elect is especially problematic. Since the Chair dominates the meeting the Chair Elect is mostly idle and this needs to change so they are more active so the NOMCOM delegates can provide critical feedback on their performance.
Louis Houle
I think that the recommandations to give voting rights to SSAC and RSSAC representatives in the same way as any other NomCom member, and to introduce two-year terms, are to be welcomed. I was surprised to see that valuable representatives could not vote!
I have some concerns on delegations and delegation head. As mentioned by Olivier, I think it is flawed and the rationale put forward is not convincing me, from my experience with a very collaborative NomCom in 2014. It might result in some confusion (conflicts?!) or no additional gain for ALAC (and NARALO or the other regions). It sounds interesting but I think that, following Irjö's comment, if it works well as it was the case in 2014, why do we want to fix something that is not broken. Maybe I don't understand how it could improve the results and how it would ease the task demanded from the committee.
I also agree with Irjö that real improvement must come from well-resourced outreach and recruitment efforts to improve diversity and regional balance. Glenn mentioned that regional balance also means candidates with a profile that is misrepresented.
As for chair-elect and associate-chair, I've been rather impressed by the quality of their contribution. I do agree that one of the two members of the leadership team could be assigned as a probable chair after a 2 years term. This could mean having a chair-elect for only one year, the year preceding his/her appointment.
Finally, I can't disagree with the intent to have a better representation of SO/AC, as Eduardo puts it above.
My 2 cents.
Satish Babu
My comments below are based on my (limited) experience with the NomCom. Apologies for some overlap with the earlier comments, but I'd like to put these comments down in any case.
1. At the outset, the intentions behind the re-engineering proposal, that of better alignment with regional and structural realities, are certainly laudable. The conversion of non-Voting members to Voting Members, and the two-year staggered terms are also welcome steps.
2. However, when examining the proposal from the internal perspective of the NomCom, several difficulties are apparent:
a. Need to preserve NomCom Dynamics
Although the NomCom is mostly viewed in terms of its outputs/outcomes, its most important aspect is the dynamics of its internal process, which could be somewhat fragile and sensitive. One gets the feeling that the NomCom in the new proposal has been reduced to a mechanical grouping of Delegations: it would appear that the authors haven't experienced the process that actually goes on. If one forces a mechanical approach to the NomCom, it may result in some of the members feeling alienated and dissatisfied with the outcome. This would be in contrast with the present system where each member gets a fair opportunity to express herself and the processes are transparent, and consequently members feel a sense of accomplishment, satisfaction and ownership in the outcome.
b. Logistical Challenges
The fear of a mechanical process arises from the size of the proposed NomCom and consequently the possible inability to provide equal opportunities to all members on account of the time required for deliberations of a large NomCom. For instance, it would be challenging to manage a group of 25 people, even in a long (120 minutes) telephone call, particularly when the call spans numerous time zones. Face to face meetings also may become unreasonably long unless a new approach is evolved.,
c. Delegation voting
The introduction of Delegation-based voting introduces yet another constraint to a fully free and transparent NomCom process. While the proposal looks fine in principle, it may leave individual members disempowered if they cannot agree on how to deploy their Delegation vote. More important, since the discussions are mostly held within the Delegation, the rest of the NomCom members see delegations only as black boxes.
d. Chair-elect
By far the most crucial issue in the new proposal is the removal of the Chair-Elect. The Chair-Elect serves two roles: the first as an understudy to the Chair who is learning the processes for possible appointment in the following year; and the second as a member of the Leadership Team assisting the Chair in managing the processes of the NomCom, and providing general oversight. The authors of the proposal seem to have ignored the second role. It is indeed ironic that while on the one hand the NomCom size is to be increased by 50%, the leadership team is to be downsized. This would have serious workload implications. I strongly feel that the Chair-elect role should be retained.
Eduardo Diaz
Satish:
With the new two year appointment for the Chair, if a Chair Elect is kept the person will need to be committed to the Nom Com for 4 years, i.e. two years as a Chair Elect and two more as a Chair. Do you have any other ideas on how this can be done differently? Maybe have it appointed the last term of the current chair? What about designating the current Associate Chair position as the Chair Elect position during the second term of the current Chair?
-ed
Satish Babu
Thanks for pointing this out, Fernando.
The problem of a person spending 4 years in the NomCom Leadership Team (NLT) can occur in the propsoed formulation as well, as the Chair could be appointed as Associate Chair after the expiry of his/her term.
The existing system of a one-year term for the Chair, leading to a maximum of 3 years in the NLT (1 year as Chair-elect + 1 year as Chair + 1 year as Associate Chair) appears to have worked well, and I do not see sufficiently strong reasons to change this (unless there is a real shortage of people who can fill this role--something that is visible to the Board but not to the rest of us). The current system also provides for leadership training as well as continuity in a smooth manner. To me, this system appears more natural and logical.
The proposed formulation results in a Chair who runs the NomCom for a two-year period, at the same time, retaining the possibility of continuing in the NLT another two years. I would consider 4 years too long for a person to be in the NLT. Further, if an outsider is brought in as Associate Chair, then the Chair becomes solely responsible to decide the form of leadership of NLT (in the current system, the presence of a Board-elected Chair-elect in the NLT would be a deterrent).
Therefore, my personal preference would be to continue the present formula, assuming we have good candidates for the Chair's position.
Finally, I also have some reservation about interim appointments in the NLT (if they arise) being made from one of the Delegations from the NomCom. NLT members are expected to be neutral and the selection as well as grooming processes reinforce this aspect. Elevating Delegation members to NLT may erode this neutrality. By having a 3-member NLT, the NomCom may be able to continue without inducting new members even if one member drops out by any chance.
Eduardo Diaz
Satish:
I suggest that you also include all your comments directly in the public area of the report.
-ed
Satish Babu
Thanks Eduardo. The revisions look very well done.
I'm adding my comments to the public area as well.
Glenn McKnight
Upon reading the full report the report wraps up with a general comments about recruitment. The comments about recruitment and its approach, results and strategy isn't complete or sufficient. The marketing tools of NOMCOM is limited to website and a brochure plus we have a lack of transparency of the marketing budget I have suggested a LINKED IN proposal which was largely ignored.