Page History

...

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, particularly in light of the two-year term for Chair and the possibility of a Chair being reappointed. However, but the concept of a Chair-in-training or Chair-in-waiting is also very attractivequite 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.