Para traducir a español
Pour traduire en Français
2. Director Qualifications
The majority of the criteria for an ICANN Board member come directly from the ICANN Bylaws. These and the other criteria are summarized at Draft Candidate Requirements.
The Bylaw mandated requirements are:
·Accomplished persons of integrity, objectivity, and intelligence, with reputations for sound judgment and open minds, and a demonstrated capacity for thoughtful group decision-making;
·Persons with an understanding of ICANN's mission and the potential impact of ICANN decisions on the global Internet community, and committed to the success of ICANN;
·Persons who will produce the broadest cultural and geographic diversity on the Board consistent with meeting the other criteria set forth in this Section;
·Persons who, in the aggregate, have personal familiarity with the operation of gTLD registries and registrars; with ccTLD registries; with IP address registries; with Internet technical standards and protocols; with policy-development procedures, legal traditions, and the public interest; and with the broad range of business, individual, academic, and non-commercial users of the Internet;
·Persons who are willing to serve as volunteers, without compensation other than the reimbursement of certain expenses; and
·Persons who are able to work and communicate in written and spoken English.
In addition, the Bylaws prohibit certain people holding other ICANN positions or national government positions from sitting on the Board; Board members are expected to meet specific conduct and conflict-of-interest criteria; and the number of Directors from any given ICANN region is controlled.
Over and above the Bylaw criteria, the ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom) has several additional criteria:
·a commitment to ICANN's mission
·demonstrated capacity for thoughtful group decision-making and sound judgment
·an understanding of the importance of good governance practices and an ability to contribute to the Board in this regard
The NomCom also goes to some length to describe the very significant time commitment involved since the ability and willingness to allocate the necessary time is critical to a Board member’s success. Currently, Board members are not compensated other than for explicit travel and similar costs (there are ongoing discussions regarding Board compensation in the Board Review committee).
The NomCom estimates 20-24 hours per week on the Board itself, plus an unspecified but presumably significant amount of time on Board committees.
Lastly, there has been some discussion about additional criteria to be imposed by At-Large. These have included:
·An understanding of the structural, communications and decision-making processes of ICANN At-Large
·An understanding of the potential impact of ICANN decisions on the global Internet-using community and the Internet end-user community in particular.
·A track record of working to build consensus with a diverse set of interests working together on complex policy issues.
To a lesser extent there has also been some discussion about a requirement that the Director come from an ALS.
Discussion:
The criteria specified in the Bylaws are presumably not subject to discussion (although how one recognizes such qualities certainly is).
The NomCom criteria, time requirements and the need to agree to them have not been the subject of any substantive discussion to date. On face value, there does not seem to be any strong rationale for NOT accepting them as mandatory.
The additional At-large criteria will be discussed one-by-one.
An understanding of ICANN At-Large
This criteria is the most controversial (to date). Supporters say that such an understanding is essential. The SO (and presumably AC) members on the Board do not “represent” the organizations that appoint them to the Board. Once on the Board, the member is a free agent, but one who has an obligation to serve the best interested of ICANN and (as a California corporation) of the public good, and not the organization that appointed them. But the philosophy is typically to appoint someone who you have sufficient knowledge of and who understands and shares a value system with the appointing organization, such that the organization can have some reasonable expectation that their needs may be well served.
This issue is a key one, since with the addition of this full Board member, the ALAC and At-Large lose their Liaison on the Board. Without a Liaison OR a Board member that they can work with, ALAC and At-Large could be voiceless within the Board.
Others feel that we should be looking for the most eminent candidate available, and that knowledge of ICANN At-Large is not required to represent users. In the view of some, knowledge and involvement with ICANN At-Large is a negative quality (and perhaps a very negative quality). Such views assert that ICANN "insiders" have unnecessary biases or limitations on viewpoints brought on by ICANN's operational culture.
The rebuttal to this is that it is the job of the NomCom to find such eminent personalities from outside of ICANN, and that it would be difficult to identify with and work with the ICANN defined At-Large Community without substantive prior knowledge.
One point of view is that candidates may come from outside the ICANN community; however those electing the Director are all within the At-Large infrastructure and as such can determine whether candidates suitably understand relevant issues and viewpoints.
To some extent, this issue goes back to whether this is a new position being defined reflecting the formal ICANN At-Large Community, or a partial recovery of the original At-Large director positions (the At-Large Community being created and the At-large Director positions abolished by means of new Bylaws in December 2002).
An understanding of the potential impact of ICANN decisions on the global Internet-using community and the Internet end-user community in particular.
To date, there has been no substantive discussion on this, and in particular, no disagreement.
A track record of working to build consensus with a diverse set of interests working together on complex policy issues.
Although there has been no substantive discussion or disagreement, the rationale is not intuitively obvious to all. There are probably few issues on which there is a single “At-Large” position. For many reasons, including political and cultural ones, there will be divisions. It is hoped that the At-Large Board member will, on an ongoing basis, reach out to At-Large to discuss the issues on which decisions need to be made. To the extent that this person can work with such diverse and divided groups, understand the varying points of view, and attempt to explain the larger issues which ICANN must consider, the better off At-Large will be.
Recommendation: 2
The criteria for At-Large Director candidates should include those mandated by the ICANN Bylaws, those promulgated by the NomCom for its Director candidates, and the additional At-large criteria:
·An understanding of ICANN At-Large.
·An understanding of the potential impact of ICANN decisions on the global Internet-using community and the Internet end-user community in particular.
·A track record of working to build consensus with a diverse set of interests working together on complex policy issues.
Notes and Appendices:
Members of the White Paper drafting team
- Sébastien Bachollet
- Alan Greenberg
- Dave Kissoondoyal
- Cheryl Langdon-Orr
- Evan Leibovitch
- Carlton Samuels
Related web pages and links:
ABS%20White%20Paper_FINAL_11012011_EN.pdf
Call%20for%20community%20Comment%20on%20ABS%20White%20Paper_FR_final.pdf
ABS%20White%20Paper_ES_final_08012010-RevisedContent_FINAL-ES.pdf
Appendix 1 - Documentation of Prior Actions
Appendix 2 - Announcement and Minutes of ICANN Board Resolution 27th August 2009
Glossary
Comments:
Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages.
(EN) I strongly support the "Additional At Large Criteria" expressed.
(ES) Apoyo fuertemente los criterios adicionales de At Large expresados.
contributed by investigaciones@densi.com.ar on 2010-01-16 11:23:15 GMT
I am confused by the statement "In the view of some, knowledge and involvement with ICANN At-Large is a negative quality (and perhaps a very negative quality)". Can someone elaborate on this since it is not clear why knowledge and involvement of At-Large is a negative quality. Who is the "some"? Persons within At-Large?
contributed by admin@ttcsweb.org on 2010-01-21 21:42:42 GMT
This view has been expressed by a number of people who feel that the At-Large Board member should not, in any sense of the word, be an ICANN "insider". So an ALAC member, a RALO leader, or an ALS member are all part of the formal ICANN At-Large and so are not a truly independent voice. In my experience, this view is generally held by those advocating a return to the the 2000-style At Large elections where a large number of unaffiliated people ran for election, and virtually anyone in the world with an e-mail address could vote. For further thoughts, see my reply to Milton Mueller at Director White Paper.
contributed by alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca on 2010-01-27 00:22:56 GMT
—
This question was brought at last LACRALO teleconference also. I believe that with ALAN´s reply to MM we can find some kind of answer to this.
contributed by investigaciones@densi.com.ar on 2010-01-27 12:20:48 GMT
—
At Large specifies additional qualifications for this Board Position as "·An understanding of the potential impact of ICANN decisions on the global Internet-using community and the Internet end-user community in particular". Here we may also say that the candidate has more affiliations to user communities and groups than to business. We may say that the candidate is preferably NOT a Registrar or an employee in a significant capacity of a Registrar / ISP or any other business related to Internet Service or Internet Infrastructure. We may prefer to have a candidate who may not have a conflict of Interest especially on business related deliberations.
There is a suggestion that the candidate preferably comes from an ALS. I fully support this suggestion.
contributed by isolatedn@gmail.com on 2010-01-27 14:18:07 GMT
—
Regarding time commitment, I would add that it is expected that the At-Large Director will be available for Board (and other) committee assignments and that their time commitment should allow for this.
Here is a more detailed breakdown on the time-commitment. We may want to use something like this.
A Director's workload includes
- attending three international ICANN meetings, each taking a minimum of 7 days of full time work, plus probably two days travel (total 27 days a year)
- attending two Board Workshops, each taking a minimum of 3 days of full time work, plus probably two days travel (total 10 days a year)
- participating in 5-7 additional phone board meetings, each taking a day's work to prepare and participate (total 7 days per year)
- contributing to 2-3, Board Committee phone meetings, each taking a day's work to prepare and participate - say 5 additional phone meetings per committee per year (total 10 to 15 days)
- keeping up-to-date with Board mailing list and ICANN stakeholder discussions - a minimum of a further 1 to 2 days per month (total 12 to 24 days a year)
Many board members find this to be a significant underestimate, and may spend up to 24 hours a week in an average week. Board members who chair Board committees have to put in additional time. (Note that because of the global membership of the ICANN Board some of the phone meetings may be scheduled during working hours and during the night).
Undertaking the role of an ICANN Board Director therefore requires considerable time flexibility, a great amount of support from one's employer, may intrude significantly into one's social life, and requires considerable personal commitment.
contributed by alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca on 2010-03-19 02:30:54 GMT
