Public Comment CloseStatement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open
Call for
Comments
Close 
Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number

10 June 2019

CPWG Feedback on NomCom Review implementation

Due 10 June 2019 (extension granted to 12 June 2019)

SUBMITTED

05 June 2019

10 June 2019

12 June 2019



Hide the information below, please click here 

FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 




FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.




DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).


1 Comment

  1. 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@gih.com>
    To:Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org>
    CC:Tom Barrett <tbarrett@encirca.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com>, Zahid Jamil-IG (internet@jamilandjamil.com) <internet@jamilandjamil.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@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 of the Final Report and the Feasibility Assessment and Initial Implementation Plan, 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.

     

    1. 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 communication of 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.

     

    1. 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 for re-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.

     

    1. 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.



     

    1. 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.

     

    1. 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 ---