Page History

Contact information for ICANN support Team and Review Working Party: Click here to view

NomCom2 Request for Proposal (RFP): Click here to view

Formation of the NomCom2 Review Working Party: Click here to view

Scope of the Review:

As part of ICANN's ongoing commitment to its evolution and improvement, Article IV, Section 4.4 of ICANN's Bylaws contains provisions for “periodic review of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee […]by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review.”

These periodic reviews present ICANN structures with opportunities for continuous improvement through consistent application of compliance audit principles to objectively measure performance relative to specific and quantifiable criteria developed by ICANN based on the unique nature of its structures. The resulting implementation of improvements and the systematic means of measuring performance and validating effectiveness of implementation are of utmost importance to the ongoing legitimacy of ICANN.

According to Article 8 of the Bylaws: “There shall be a Nominating Committee of ICANN (“Nominating Committee”), responsible for nominating all Directors except the President and those Directors nominated by Decisional Participants; for nominating two directors of PTI (in accordance with the articles of incorporation and bylaws of PTI); and for such other selections as are set forth in these Bylaws.

“ The NomCom is a committee that is re-composed each year; meaning that its members are appointed for one year, i.e. one ‘selection cycle’; although some members are re-appointed and do serve on consecutive NomComs. The 2016 NomCom is composed of 20 members, three of which form the leadership team. The NomCom represents the depth and breadth of the ICANN Community (see also Article 8 Section 8.4 of the Bylaws). Members are selected for one year and they shall be:

a) Accomplished persons of integrity, objectivity, and intelligence, with reputations for sound judgment and open minds, and with experience and competence with collegial large group decision-making;

b) Persons with wide contacts, broad experience in the Internet community, and a commitment to the success of ICANN;

c) Persons whom the selecting body is confident will consult widely and accept input in carrying out their responsibilities;

d) Persons who are neutral and objective, without any fixed personal commitments to particular individuals, organizations, or commercial objectives in carrying out their Nominating Committee responsibilities;

e) Persons with an understanding of ICANN's mission and the potential impact of ICANN's activities on the broader Internet community who are willing to serve as volunteers, without compensation other than the reimbursement of certain expenses; and f) Persons who are able to work and communicate in written and spoken English.

The NomCom is designed to function independently from the ICANN Board, Supporting Organizations, and Advisory Committees. NomCom members act only on behalf of the interests of the global Internet community and within the scope of the ICANN mission and responsibilities assigned to it by the ICANN Bylaws.

Members contribute to the NomCom both their understanding of the broad interests of the Internet as a whole and their knowledge and experience of the concerns and interests of the Internet stakeholders that have appointed them. The challenge for the NomCom is to integrate these perspectives and derive consensus in its selections. Although appointed by Supporting Organizations and other ICANN bodies, individual NomCom members are not directly accountable to their appointing constituencies. They are required to attend meetings and adhere to the NomCom’s Operating Procedures; the compliance with these requirements may impact on NomCom member’s re-appointment. Members cannot be held accountable for specific selection choices made.

Section 4.4 of the Bylaws addresses the periodic review of ICANN’s structures and operations:

The Board shall cause a periodic review of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee (as defined in Section 8.1) by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review. The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization, council or committee has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness and (iii) whether that organization, council or committee is accountable to its constituencies, stakeholder groups, organizations and other stakeholders. These periodic reviews shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, based on feasibility as determined by the Board. Each five-year cycle will be computed from the moment of the reception by the Board of the final report of the relevant review Working Group. The results of such reviews shall be posted on the Website for public review and comment, and shall be considered by the Board no later than the second scheduled meeting of the Board after such results have been posted for 30 days. The consideration by the Board includes the ability to revise the structure or operation of the parts of ICANN being reviewed by a two-thirds vote of all Directors, subject to any rights of the EC under the Articles of Incorporation and these Bylaws.

Scope of the Work

The objective of this RFP is to identify an independent reviewer to conduct a review of the NomCom as mandated by the ICANN Bylaws. The Review is scheduled to take place from April 2017 through May 2018.  The scope of work will include the following key elements:

1. An assessment of whether the NomCom has a continuing purpose within the ICANN structure;

2. An assessment of how effectively the NomCom fulfills its purpose and whether any change in structure or operations is needed to improve effectiveness, in accordance with the ICANN-provided objective and quantifiable criteria;

a. An assessment of NomCom nominating cycles from 2011 onwards with regard to the effectiveness of the appointments by the NomCom selection process, without conducting performance assessments of individual NomCom appointees;

b. An assessment of the composition and size of NomCom;

3. An assessment of the extent to which the NomCom as a whole is accountable to the wider ICANN community, its organizations, committees, constituencies, and stakeholder groups to make effective selections.

As the NomCom is reconstituted on an annual basis, the scope of the review should include nominating cycles from 2011 to the present. 

ICANN will supply the criteria to be used in conducting the NomCom Review, which were developed in collaboration with the NomCom Review Working Party. These criteria include but are not limited to the categories listed below. To further elaborate on the criteria, several questions are included within relevant categories, possibly for inclusion by the Independent Examiner into interviews or surveys, as applicable:

A)   Fulfilment of mission, adherence to Policies and Procedures, and organizational support · Are the decision-making procedures of the NomCom consistent over the years – if not, why is flexibility important and which procedures (if any) should remain constant?

B)    Accountability and transparency to the public •

• How can the NomCom selection process be improved, including but not limited to transparency, accountability, diversity and representativeness?

C. NomCom Composition, membership processes and participation

• · Does the outcome of the selection processes of the various SO/ACs to the NomCom, including those of the GNSO’s Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, lead to a functional, diverse, and representative NomCom?
• · Does representation in the current NomCom structure appropriately match ICANN’s goals of diversity and representativeness – if not, how could the structure of the NomCom change to reflect that remit better? 
• · Should there be term limits on NomCom membership?

D. Communication

• · Are the NomCom’s communications and its community channels – both among its members about its internal processes, and among the ICANN community about its role and function – adequate to assure understanding and legitimacy of its action? If not, how can it be improved?

E. Governance and management, effectiveness of execution

• · How effective has each annual NomCom been in terms of appointing candidates that meet the stipulated requirements? This assessment should not include conducting performance assessments of individual NomCom appointees.
• · Do the SO/ACs and the ICANN Board provide adequate guidance with regard to the qualities and skills they seek from NomCom appointees?
• · Do the qualities that the NomCom appointees displayed correspond with the selection criteria communicated to the NomCom by the Board and the SO/ACs? Specifically, did the NomCom classes of 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 produce appointees to the Board and the SO/AC Councils that embodied the qualities that were identified to make a positive impact to those bodies?
• · Should the strategy for defining a pool of prospective candidates be modified?

F. Evaluation and measurement of outcomes

• · Is the NomCom’s assessment process adequate to determine whether candidates possess the skills needed to perform the task asked of them on the bodies they are appointed to?

 · Does the entity to which the NomCom appoints members consider that the appointees have been effective in their contributions during their appointed terms? – if so, how and what has the outcome been? If not, why not? 

G. Effectiveness of implementation of prior review recommendations This includes the implementation status of the recommendations of the NomCom Review Finalization Working Group, and the procedural reforms resulting from the Accountability, Transparency Reviews: ATRT1 and ATRT2 (see Background Section below for further details).

• · Have all recommendations from the first NomCom Review, and pertinent recommendations from ATRT1 and ATRT2 been implemented? If not, why not?
• · Have the implemented recommendations from previous review efforts led to the desired improvements?

The outcome of the current review will be factored into the strategic planning work and a holistic consideration of the ICANN structure as a whole.

NomCom2 Review Timeline: 

24 April 2017 - Work plan and timeline

8 May 2017 - Interview Plan – candidates and questions

19 June 2017 - Survey(s) plan – online tool, questions aligned with review criteria, quantitative and qualitative elements, translations

31 October 2017 - Preliminary findings for discussion with Review Working Party

8 January 2018 - Draft Report for Review Working Party consideration

28 January 2018 - Draft Report for Public Comment

28 April 2018 - Final Report for discussion with the Review Working Party

31 May 2018 - Final Report issued and posted

Background - Previous NomCom Review

In July 2007, the ICANN Board of Directors appointed Interisle Consulting Group to undertake the independent review of the ICANN NomCom. The first NomCom Review focused on how well the NomCom has performed its function during four selection cycles (2003- 2006), and whether there were general or specific ways to enhance its effectiveness. Additionally, the composition of the NomCom, its internal procedures (including transparency), the selection process it utilizes, and the extent of its outreach were assessed by the Independent Examiner. The Final Report, summarizing findings from the independent review and containing proposals for action, was published on 23 October 2007.

Following a process that is no longer in place, a public comment period was opened to help ensure that the independent review report contained sufficient and accurate information and to advise the Board on whether any changes were needed for the NomCom. The public comment closed in 2008 and staff produced a Summary Report. Subsequently, a NomCom Review Finalization Group was formed that presented its Final Report to the ICANN Board in January 2010 and was adopted in March 2010. The latest details of the implementation of all recommendations from the 2007 Review and the work of the Review Finalization Group were published in March 2012.

Additional information about the first NomCom Review is available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/org/nomcom. The Final Report of the Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) is available at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/bwg-nomcom-21aug14-en.pdf The public comment on the BWG-NomCom Review is available at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-comments-bwg-nomcom- 26jan15-en.pdf.

2014 Board Working Group on NomCom

The Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) formed in February 2014, was charged with performing the review called for in Recommendation 10 of the NomCom Review Finalization Working Group, addressing issues of the size and composition of the NomCom, as well as the related issues of NomCom's recruitment and selection functions. The BWG-NomCom considered the role of the NomCom in ICANN, as well as issues of representation and parity among the entities across ICANN that have members serving on the NomCom.

The BWG-NomCom prepared a report that included 15 recommendations. Pursuant to its Charter, the report was presented to the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), currently the Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC). After the SIC reviewed the report, the Committee recommended that the Board direct staff to post the report for public comment. A summary of the public comments received can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-comments-bwg-nomcom-26jan15- en.pdf. The Report contained a number of recommendations with regard to size and termlength of the NomCom but did not address other issues such as the NomCom’s leadership selection. The recommendations were not implemented due to community feedback. The BWG-NomCom decided that its draft report and recommendations along with the community feedback trough public comments should serve as an input into the current Review.

Additional improvements through the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT)

Additionally, procedural reforms were implemented following the ATRT1 and ATRT2 Final Reports. It was following those ATRT recommendations that the ICANN Bylaws were amended with regard to the NomCom Leadership Team, which now consists of a Chair, Chair-Elect and an Associate Chair. In addition, NomCom’s transparency was strengthened and since 2012 the NomCom publishes pertinent statistics as well as recommendations to the next NomComs. 3