FINAL VERSION TO BE 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.
A. Preamble
- Given that ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model depends on balanced participation from all stakeholders in the policy formulation process, and as the ICANN Nominating Committee is mandated with ensuring that a fair, participatory process exists to identify and appoint individuals for the leadership positions, the periodic independent external review is important to ensure that the NomCom continues to function effectively in the face of changes in the ICANN community and environment.
2. The ALAC is therefore thankful for this opportunity for commenting on the recommendations of the draft final report of the NomCom Review.
B. Recommendations
| Recommendation 1: Formalize a job description | Agree. ALAC has already internally started a process of drawing up job descriptions. Diversity (particularly of Gender) should be a consideration. |
| Recommendation 2: Training to NomCom members for BoD | Agree, as long as the training does not attempt to coerce members to a preset agenda. NomCom members must keep the overall interests of ICANN as well as the Global Public Interest in mind as general guiding principles. |
| Recommendation 3: Training for NomCom Leadership | Agree on training. The current arrangement of Chair-elect seems to work fine, and it may be disruptive to appoint a Chair while another Chair is serving the role. |
| Recommendation 4: Training for NomCom members for Candidate Evaluation | Agree. |
| Recommendation 5: Role of a professional consultant | Agree, with the stipulations that (a) the process of identification of the consultant must be free and fair, and (b) the same consultant should not continue for a set number of years (say two years). |
| Recommendation 6: | Agree, with the same caveats as for #5. |
| Recommendation 7: A maximum of two two-year terms for NomCom Members | ALAC considered the current system of 1+1 years, which we feel is somewhat short, but at the same time, several of us find 2+2 years to be too long (both from locking up a potential leader, and also from making room for others). We would like to propose 2+1 years as an alternative to 2+2 years in case the latter is not acceptable by other constituencies. Further, additional co-ordination between constituencies to stagger appointments for continuity will also help. |
| Recommendation 8: Maintain current size of NomCom | Agree. |
| Recommendation 9: All NomCom members should be voting members | Agree. |
| Recommendation 10: Review every 5 years | Agree. |
| Recommendation 11: Senior NomCom Support Staff should report to the CEO | Cautiously agree: Given that the NomCom Chair and Chair-elect report to the BGC, their support Staff reporting to the CEO has the potential to create crossed wires, besides constraining the NomCom leadership. If such issues can be avoided and if the proposed arrangement has the potential to enhance the flexibility of the NomCom, only then it is worth implementing. |
| Recommendation 12: NomCom leadership should have input on NomCom budget | Agree. Given the situation that some ICANN meetings are convened in places where some NomCom members, particularly from At-Large, find it difficult to obtain visas, the NomCom should be allowed to convene their face-to-face meetings in places where it decides and not be forced to follow the ICANN Schedules. This has budget implications. In any case, functional autonomy of the NomCom implies a degree of control over its own budget. |
| Recommendation 13: Publish a Process diagram | Agree. |
| Recommendations 14, 15, 16 | Agree. |
| Recommendation 15: | Agree. |
| Recommendation 16: | Agree. |
| Recommendation 17: Maintain NomCom Diversity at current levels | Do Not Agree: Diversity is usually something that we can never have enough of, particularly given the Multistakeholder composition of ICANN. While there may be challenges in increasing NomCom diversity, we have not yet reached a point where the diversity is sufficient (noting that even the Gender diversity requirements are not met during all years). |
| Recommendation 18: | Agree. |
| Recommendation 19: | Agree. Here is where an external professional agency can help out |
| Recommendation 20: Preliminary screening by external consultants | Do Not Agree: The preliminary screening should be done by the NomCom itself (as it was done this year). Besides being fair, this would also be cost-effective. Screening by an external party has the risky as its effectiveness is not easy to judge. |
| Recommendation 21: Standardized Matrix | It may not be practically feasible to create such a matrix, but if this can be done to the satisfaction of NomCom members, it could be tried out. |
| Recommendation 22: Standardized interview questions | Agree if this is feasible. |
| Recommendation 23: Publish additional data on the Candidate Pool | Agree, subject to GDPR Compliance at all stages of handling personal data. |
| Recommendation 24: Assess the performance of the Board as an indicator of NomCom selection efficiency | Agree, assuming that the performance of the individual NomCom appointees can be assessed individually |
| Recommendation 25: Advancing its nominations process into a Leadership Development function | Do Not Agree: This is outside the remit of the NomCom |
| Recommendation 26: Clarity on Independent Directors | Do Not Agree: Currently the NomCom-appointed Directors are a mixture of independent directors and ICANN insiders. There is no reason to further “harden” this structure as the current system seems to be working reasonably well. |
C. General Comments
One the whole, the ICANN NomCom system has been working fairly well considering the significant challenges that it functions under. The NomCom Leadership as well as the members have taken on the onerous task of candidate selection, and have worked under time pressure and heavy workloads. The ALAC appreciates the work of successive NomComs.
The following comments are made in the overall spirit of making further improvements to the functioning of the NomCom, as well as in addressing the additional challenges ICANN is likely to encounter from its operating environment, particularly the demand for increased transparency in selections to key leadership positions.
1. As noted in the report, the ICANN NomCom is different in its function compared to most other Nominating Committees. The ICANN NomCom is more of a Selection Committee than the generic Nominating Committee (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee#Nominating_committee), whose main task assigned is to identify a slate of candidates for different positions, which is then voted on by the membership. In this way the NomCom subsumes some of the membership’s powers, and consequently, it should be much more accountable to the community.
2. A significant related concern is that since the NomCom is a much smaller group of people (than the membership), whether it is possible for a small group of NomCom members to ‘game’ the candidate selection process. In this regard, the somewhat opaque and confidential nature of NomCom processes makes it difficult for a NomCom member to refer to even her appointing constituency if in case of doubt.
3. The current review has steered clear of both the above concerns. As an independent, autonomous organization, ICANN would be subject to more intense public scrutiny in future, and perhaps it’s important to dispel any doubts on these important issues.
4. The current practice is for each NomCom to start “on a clean slate” as far as its operations are concerned. In order to retain and re-use the best practices of previous NomComs, it is suggested that a living document on NomCom best practices be maintained by Staff with inputs reviewed by the NomCom leadership. The “firewall” between consecutive NomComs is not desirable, particularly since a number of members would be common between the two.
5. Confidentiality has been an important part of NomCom’s functioning. While confidentiality needs to be maintained at the core, wherever open, transparent processes can be adopted, they should be. An opaque NomCom is not in the best interests of an otherwise open, transparent, bottom-up Multistakeholder organization such as ICANN.
6. The 360-degree evaluations that used to be carried out for each NomCom member and for the leadership team have not found a place in the review recommendations. If provided in time, these may be useful for the NomCom to provide feedback to the appointing constituencies on the performance of their appointees. A single composite score aggregating individual scores may also be useful in assigning an overall evaluation for the whole NomCom. The practice should therefore be continued.
7. Since NomCom collects a great deal of personal data from individual applicants, it needs to ensure compliance with the requirements of GDPR.
8. There are several recommendations that touch upon the need for training. As a general point, members of NomCom should be rather guided to understand the broad ecosystem of ICANN, the challenges it faces and the leadership that it requires, rather than provide them only with specific skills. In particular, the importance of non-verbal cues such as body language, which may require specialized training.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.
A. Preamble
- Given that ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model depends on balanced participation from all stakeholders in the policy formulation process, and as the ICANN Nominating Committee is mandated with ensuring that a fair, participatory process exists to identify and appoint individuals for the leadership positions, the periodic independent external review is important to ensures that the NomCom continues to function effectively in the face of changes in the ICANN community and environment.
- The ALAC is therefore thankful for this opportunity for commenting on the recommendations of the draft final report of the NomCom Review
B. Responses to Specific Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Formalize a job description | Agree. ALAC has already adopted this process.
|
Recommendation 2: Training to NomCom members | Agree, as long as the training does not attempt to coerce members to a preset agenda. NomCom members must keep the interests of their own constituency as well as the Global Public Interest in mind as general guiding principles. |
Recommendation 3: Training for NomCom Leadership | Agree.
|
Recommendation 5: Role of a professional consultant | Agree, with the stipulations that (a) the process of identification of the consultant must be free and fair, and (b) the same consultant should not continue for a set number of years (say two years). |
Recommendation 6 | Agree, with the same caveats as for #5. |
Recommendation 7: A maximum of two two-year terms for NomCom Members | Do not Agree: Up to two one-year terms, which is the current practice, does not need to change. A one-year term allows the sending constituency group to withdraw an unsuitable person after a year (noting that the NomCom has just unilaterally "fired" one of its members).
Further, for At-Large, the NomCom is also a good place for grooming its internal leaders, especially promising newcomers. A four-year term limits the number of leaders who can be groomed through the NomCom. Given that At-Large has many people waiting on the wings for leadership opportunities, two one-year terms may be more appropriate. |
Recommendation 8: Maintain current size of NomCom | Agree. |
Recommendation 9: All NomCom members should be voting members | Agree. |
Recommendation 10: Review every 5 years
| Agree. |
Recommendation 11: Senior NomCom Support Staff should report to the CEO | Do not agree: Given that the NomCom Chair and Chair-elect report to the BGC, their support Staff reporting to the CEO has the potential to create crossed wires, besides constraining the NomCom leadership. The Staff member should report to the NomCom Leadership. |
Recommendation 12: NomCom leadership should have input on NomCom budget | Agree. Given the situation that some ICANN meetings are convened in places where some NomCom members, particularly from At-Large, find it difficult to obtain visas, the NomCom should be allowed to convene their face-to-face meetings in places where it decides and not be forced to follow the ICANN Schedules. This has budget implications. In any case, functional autonomy of the NomCom implies a degree of control over its own budget. |
Recommendation 13: Publish a Process diagram | Agree. |
Recommendations 14, 15, 16 | Agree. |
Recommendation 17: Maintain NomCom Diversity at current levels | Do Not Agree: Diversity is usually something that we can never have enough of, particularly given the Multistakeholder composition of ICANN. While there may be challenges in increasing NomCom diversity, we have not yet reached a point where the diversity is sufficient (noting that even the Gender diversity requirements are not met during all years). |
Recommendation 20: Preliminary screening by external consultants | The preliminary screening can be done by the NomCom itself (as it was done this year). Besides being fair, this would also be cost-effective.
If an external consultant must be brought in for this step, then it must be subject to stipulation mentioned in Recommendation #5 above. |
C. General Comments
1. As noted in the report, the ICANN NomCom is different in its function compared to most other Nominating Committees. Going by the general definition of a Nominating Committee (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee#Nominating_committee), the main task assigned is to identify a slate of candidates for different positions, which is then voted on by the membership. In ICANN, the NomCom goes beyond this, directly appointing candidates to positions. In this way the NomCom subsumes some of the membership’s powers, and consequently, it should be much more accountable to the community. At present, only a very small part of the ICANN community appears to sense a potential problem in this structure. The survey does not appear to have listed this as a point for comment.
2. A significant related concern here is that since the NomCom is a much smaller group of people (than the membership), whether it is possible to ‘game’ the candidate selection process by a small group of NomCom members. In this regard, the opaque and ‘confidential’ nature of NomCom processes makes it impossible for a NomCom member to consult her appointing constituency, making the possibility of gaming easier.
3. The current review has steered clear of both the above concerns. As ICANN becomes functionally independent of all Governments, it would be subject to intense public scrutiny, and perhaps it’s important to dispel any doubts on these important issues.
4. The current practice is for each NomCom to start “on a clean slate” as far as its operations are concerned. In order to retain and re-use the best practices of previous NomComs, it is suggested that a living document on NomCom best practises be maintained by Staff with inputs reviewed by the NomCom leadership.
5. Much has been made about the confidentiality of NomCom’s processes. While confidentiality needs to be maintained at the core, wherever open, transparent processes can be adopted, they should be done. An opaque NomCom is not in the best interests of an otherwise open, transparent, bottom-up Multistakeholder organization such as ICANN.
6. The 360-degree evaluations that used to be carried out for each NomCom member and for the leadership team have not found a place in the review recommendations. If provided in time, these may be useful for the NomCom to provide feedback to the appointing constituencies on the performance of their appointees. A single composite score aggregating individual scores may also be useful in assigning an overall evaluation for the whole NomCom. The practice should therefore be continued.
17 Comments
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
In EURALO, we asked our recent past NomCom representatives for their input regarding the questions that are being asked.
Please find the following responses:
From Sandra Hoferichter:
A general comment: At the moment (each) Nom Com is starting from scratch and reinventing the wheel, this can lead to a lot of distractions and is very time consuming, time that could be used more wisely.
From Yrjö Länsipuro:
For a reviewer, NomCom is a more difficult target than most other ICANN bodies. The most important part of the NomCom work consists of deliberating the merits af concrete individuals. Due to confidentiality requirements, pertinent data are not available – not from the archives, neither from current or former NomCom members who remain bound by their confidentiality commitments.
Information on how NomComs have succeeded in their task – how their choices to ICANN bodies have actually performed – may not either be systematically and objectively available.
The draft final report bears marks of these difficulties. The reviewers have tried to reconstruct the processes and problems within the “black box”, but interviews and surveys have rarely given a clear and unambiguous picture of them. Most of the time, their interlocutors seem to have different opinions. This sometimes leads to wrong conclusions.
Eg., according to the report, “A common concern raised by both interviews and survey respondents was that NomCom members too often voted as blocs based on the organization that sent them to the NomCom or some other common interest.”
Since each NomCom only votes once, on the final slate (and that vote is usually unanimous), “voting” probably here refers to straw polls that are taken as part of deliberations. They are secret, carefully managed by staff, and even members don’t know how others have marked their ballots. Has the “common concern” been based just on assumptions?
On the whole, the NomCom system and recent successive NomComs are a given a fairly clean bill, with room for improvement noted here and there. No fundamental problems have been found. The reviewers have correctly identified main problems, such as the lack of continuity from one NomCom to the next, which results in inventing the wheel again and again, the vagueness of information from the Board and SO/AC’s as to the skill and competencies needed, and the inbuilt conflicting demands for confidentiality and transparency.
The main remedies offered by the reviewers are codifying and institutionalizing NomCom processes, improving information about competence requirements, systematizing assessment and evaluation of candidates, selecting and training NomCom members to be better suited for their task and clarifying the role of professional recruitment vendors.
All that is good and well, but the main problem – lack of continuity – remains as long as each NomCom remains an entity unto itself, with complete sovereignty over its procedures and processes[1]. Different NomComs will continue to take different approaches: some will be happy to follow the accumulated corpus of previous rules and guidelines, some will try to build procedural rules from the scratch, only to abandon the ambitious project when real work starts. As long as each NomCom remains responsible just for its watch, and for its overwhelming objective, which is to produce a slate by the end of the June meeting, none will have time and energy to start a major institutional reform.
Recommendations
1. OK
2-4. Training is always good. However, interview training has been part of the NomCom schedule for many years and not only begun in 2018 – this factual error should be corrected.
5-19. OK
20. I have serious doubts about the suggestion that the recruitment consultant should make the preliminary screening of board candidates, providing blinded assessments to the NomCom and thus withholding information from the NomCom.
21. I can understand the desire to standardize everything into a matrix that looks objective and perhaps even quantifiable. However, we should keep in mind that the NomCom is not creating leaders by engineering them to certain specifications. In the end, all depends on the candidate pool, and all NomCom work has to be tailored to what talent is actually available, in terms of skills, competencies, diversity etc.
22-24. OK
25. This is not the job of the NomCom in its present form
26. Designating three seats for directors presumably more independent than other five is an odd idea, even though “independence” could somehow be defined.
[1] Bylaws, Section 8.7. PROCEDURES:
“The Nominating Committee shall adopt such operating procedures as it deems necessary, which shall be published on the Website.”
From Veronica Cretu:
In addition to the many great comments/contributions made by Sandra and Yrjo, I want to add couple of more reflections:
- from my 2 years of experience, I can state that starting from scratch, as put by Sandra, is definitely a waste of time and resources and this has to change. On the contrary, I see the value in building on the past/previous experiences/capitalize on those which proved to work and continue building on those.
- the recommendations made vis-a-vis the types of training needed to be provided to NomCom members: I partly agree with those, but again, speaking from experience, I know that would be helpful for few members. In general, members of NomCom should be rather guided to understand the broader ecosystem of ICANN, with levels of development per each component/dimension of the ecosystem and be able to carry out the mapping of the most relevant/stringent needs for the next years from the perspective of the leadership role/competencies and anchor the search for board members, etc based on those specific needs.
- at the same time, NomCom members should understand and distinguish between ways to select people for 'power/influence' related positions as opposed to 'competency' based ones. It is way too much complex, but understanding those complexities help target the right people for the board.
- 'effectiveness of the NomCom depends heavily on the effectiveness of the Chair' - great to see effectiveness being highlighted - it would be recommended to start measuring it, through specific performance indicators, set targets/baseline data and possibility to keep track of the progress made, see the trajectory of the developments, and intervene immediately when something deviates/goes into the 'red' zone.
- It is proposed: "techniques to facilitate committee meetings, agenda development and management, balanced participation by committee members, meeting deadlines and ensuring both leaders and volunteers perform and communicate appropriately, partnering with the staff to agree on responsibilities, processes and procedures, communications plans, and discussing realistic expectations" - trainings on building these skills have to be anchored in lots of simulation exercises, and having a professional coach to actually be able to provide constructive feedback on the progress individual members are making. Also, they have to have personal development component and career guidance included, so that members/chairs, etc understand how this skills development is going to help them achieve their mid-term/longer term career objectives. Often, people are not intrinsically motivated to dedicate time and learn new skills, because they miss a personal/career development plan, and they can not associate/connect the tasks they perform on NomCom with their longer term aspirations. A coach would greatly help.
- training for candidate evaluation process should definitely include/dedicate sufficient attention to the non-verbal communication. This helps greatly understand, in many cases, much more about the candidate than from any writing or talking to that person. It is important to master the right tools to be able to do that. Some initiation training/module would be great.
These are in brief my immediate reflections after having quickly gone through the report and most specifically, through recommendations. It is very important how implementation of those will be done, given the wide spectrum of theories and practices around team management, motivation, skills development, among others.
From Olivier Crépin-Leblond:
My experience on NomCom was from a long time ago, and I only served for 1 year. All of the points made by Sandra, Yrjö and Veronica make a lot of sense. Together they span more than 6 years of serving on the NomCom from the EURALO region. My only concern would be the time served on the NomCom which could be as much as 2 years + 2 years. Personally I'd find this a little long, whilst a 1+1 year is not long enough, for the simple reason that one has to go through a full NomCom year to get to understand what is expected of you better. Like any position, it takes time to get efficient at the job. Thus 2+1 year might be a good option. If timed properly across the SOs & ACs, this would always ensure that there are some very experienced people among the group.
Satish Babu
Hi Olivier,
Thanks for the detailed comments from Yrjö, Sandra, Veronica and yourself. I've summarized and included most of them in the final version.
Bartlett Morgan
I really appreciate the effort of the former EURALO NOMCOM reps to provided detailed responses on this.
Fatimata Seye Sylla
Below are my comments to the review report recommendations:
Rec #1 it is good to formalize to make it mandatory to consider diversity and gender as important selection criteria. I recognize that during my 2 terms, the NomCom delegates seriously took into account diversity and gender.
Rec #2 Ok
Rec #3 I prefer to keep the chair elec vs providing only a training. The training in Rec #2 should include leadership skills to be a chair for all NomCom delegates I agree that the Nomcom should select it chair with or without the board involvement
Rec #4 to 6 Ok
Rec # 7 Yes for a maximum of 2 terms of 2 years each during lifetime, with possibility to step down if needed
Rec # 8 & 9, Ok
Rec#10 Review and Re-balance Nomcom representation every 5 years. Yes but It will be difficult to convince constituencies feeling disadvantaged in terms of the number of their delegates. ALAC represents most of the ICANN community in terms of numbers and diversity and the number of its delegates should not be reduced
Rec # 11 : Yes to link the Nomcom Manager to the office of the ICANN CEO for more added value. I found Nomcom staff very professional and efficient reaching out to other ICANN technical resources to perfectly complete their duty.
Rec #12 - 16; Ok
Rec#17 Diversity requirement should be addressed during outreach for new candidates by the recruiting consultant taking into account Rec 15 (publish JD + desired competencies and experience in collaboration with the recruiting consultant) and Rec 1 (formalize the importance of diversity and gender)
Rec#18 - 22 Ok
Rec#23 : Yes to publishing recruiting source of candidate but no to publishing not clearly pre-identified and agreed additional data. Personal data is very sensitive and should be carefully handled
Rec#24 -25 Ok
Rec#26 : clarity on independent directors, ok for all Board directors. Why only three?
General comment : There are good recommendations but overall the report seems to be focused on Board Directors as if the other NC appointees are not important.
Satish Babu
Hi Fatimata,
Thanks for your great comments! I've tried to include most of them in the final version.
Justine Chew
Is there a reason why the draft statement contains responses to specific recommendations and not all the recommendations? Thanks.
Satish Babu
Thanks for your comment, Justine. The reason is that we had only listed the recommendations where we had a comment. Responses have come in from the community on the other points as well.
Justine Chew
Satish,
Thanks for your reply. Not sure who "we" is, and I was puzzled because the EURALO feedback were posted ahead of the draft statement you posted but not necessarily reflected in your draft. But granted, that's what a call for comments is for.
Further, ...
Recommendation 2:
Recommendation 7:
Recommendations 24 and 25
C. General Comments
Satish Babu
Thanks Justine, for these comments.
BTW, I drafted the comments which were reviewed by Nadira before it was published here, so the 'we' refered to Nadira and I!
Satish Babu
Hi Justine,
Most of your comments have been incorporated in the final version. In particular,
Justine Chew
Thanks Satish.
An option of 2+1 is fine with me, save that that would then render the formula for staggered seating even more complicated, if at all possible. I am, however, happy to accede to the majority view on these 2 aspects. To suggest staggering as desirable might just be the only expression that makes sense.
Nadira Alaraj
Now with the GDPR in place, the Final review report should include a recommendation of the way NomCom and ICANN handles the personal data of the applicants.
Satish Babu
Thanks Nadira. I've incorporated GDPR in a specific comment as well as under general comments.
Holly Raiche
The EURALO contributions from Sandra, Yrjo, Veronica and Olivier are really helpful. For me, the two issues that come through are that each NomCom should not have to 'sart from scratch' - that 'learnings' from past NomCom members should be available. On the terms, I take OCL's point - 4 years is a long time, but just two years may be too short - it takes a year just to get up to speed. I largely agree with Satish's responses, and agree with Nadira on the need to ensure that the handling of all personal data be in accord with general data protection rules.
Satish Babu
Thanks Holly!
Maureen Hilyard
I agree that it has been interesting and helpful to hear from those experienced former NomCom members as well as those who are currently members. It does seem that the group has been mis-named - should they be entitled the Appointment Committee as they do not simply "nominate" people for a position? But apart from that, I too agree with most of Satish's responses, but taking into account the additional comments that have been made by Justine and Nadira. I also noted that Olivier and Sandra recommended a "2 years plus one" term - and as Justine states if they don't perform, there are mechanisms for removing them at any time, but sometimes people need time to understand the system properly before they can be truly effective. Staggered appointments would allow for a more fluid transition for new members as well as to retain some continuity and leadership within the group as suggested by Olivier and others.
I must note here, with regards to the "keep the interests of their own constituency" section - the ccNSO gave to the NomCom a set of appointment guidelines after the 2017 NomCom recommendation to the ccNSO Council contravened a ccNSO ruling that only ONE representative from the same organisation within a region could be appointed to their Council. The NomCom appointed a member of the CIRA Board to the ccNSO Council when there was already a CIRA Board member on the Council. The Council rejected the NomCom appointee.
Satish Babu
Thanks for the comments, Maureen.
For the term of the NomCom member, I have finally proposed 2+1 years (as propsoed by Olivier), with staggered appointments as a desirable feature (it would be hard for the NomCom to insist on staggering, as it would be mostly under the control of the appointing body).
No doubt, the NomCom has to conform to the stated requirements of the different constituencies. I have toned down the "interests of their own constituency phrase" a little bit, so that it is not misconstrued.