Draft BCEC Operating Principles
All members of the Board Candidate Evaluation Committee shall work together in trust and respect.
1. Scope
These Operating Procedures apply to and must be agreed to by:
- any and all At-Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee (BCEC) members;
- any and all ICANN staff members engaged in supporting the work of the BCEC, and
- any and all outside consultants who may be retained by the BCEC to assist with any phase of its work.
2. BCEC’s Objectives
The following are the core objectives of the BCEC:
- Identify, recruit, and seek nominations from the highest-quality individuals for the At-Large Board position based on the criteria developed and agreed;
- Advance the core mission, values and bylaws of ICANN [alacabsdt:Bylaws Article I, Sections 1 and 2, see http.--www.icann.org-general-bylaws.htm#I-1 and http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#I-2);
- Consider diversity in geography, culture, skills, gender, experience, and perspectives from across the At-Large Community;
- Earn the trust and respect of the At-Large Community by acting with fairness and integrity, and by providing transparency of objectives, criteria, procedures, and mechanisms for receiving input, while respecting applicants’ privacy and maintaining the confidentiality that is necessary to assure open and frank communications within BCEC;
3. BCEC's Role
- The BCEC is responsible for soliciting and accepting applications from individuals for the position of Board Director selected by At-Large (refered to as 'Director' in remainder of document), for evaluation of the nominations, and the creation of a slate of candidates from which one will be selected by At-Large.
- Each BCEC member is expected to do his/her best to find the highest-qualified applicants for consideration by the BCEC, and to do his/her best to encourage those individuals to serve.
- The central rationale behind the existence of the BCEC is twofold:
- The BCEC is to identify applicants who would each make an excellent Board Director. It is to seek out and put forward candidates who have the highest integrity and capability, who are knowledgeable about both ICANN’s and At Large's mission and environment, and who are best able to articulate and advance the views and needs of the global community of Internet end-users to the ICANN Board.
- The BCEC has a responsibility to keep the size of the slate to a reasonable number, even if it receives a large number of eligible applications. While the size of the slate is not specified, at least one candidate must be named, and it is expected that the slate created by the BCEC will not exceed three to seven candidates.
- To achieve this broad At-Large public-interest orientation, members of BCEC are drawn from across the At-Large Community. They are to act only on behalf of the interests of the global Internet community in general and the At-Large Community in particular within the scope of the ICANN mission and the responsibilities assigned to the ALAC by ICANN Bylaws. As representatives of the At-Large constituency in ICANN, BCEC members are responsible to At-Large, to work by consensus to determine the slate of candidates. The BCEC is enabled to identify people both inside and outside the formal ICANN At-Large Community, and to produce a slate that represents the diversity associated with the global community of Internet end-users.
- The BCEC will ensure that all candidates on the slate meet the criteria for the Director position, as determined by the ALAC and documented at draft mandatory and desirable candidate characteristics.
- Whilst the BCEC and its members are expected to function independently from ALAC and other ICANN committees, the BCEC is expected to act within parameters defined by the ALAC.
- The BCEC selections are final; no further approval or ratification will take place.
4. Integrity and Conflicts of Interest
- The BCEC functions independently from all parts of ICANN, including the ICANN Board, the Supporting Organizations, the Advisory Committees, the Nominating Committee and ICANN Staff.
- BCEC members are expected to strictly adhere to the ICANN Conflict of Interest Policy, as amended. See http://www.icann.org/en/committees/coi/coi-policy-30jul09-en.htm, which is incorporated by reference herein and shall be an integral part of these Operating Principles.
- Each BCEC member must disclose promptly to the BCEC the existence of any financial or other relations that might affect (or might reasonably be seen to affect) his/her performance on the BCEC, including any financial connections and/or personal non-monetary advantages to any individual under consideration by the BCEC. BCEC members must recuse themselves from participation in discussion and voting where such conflicts exist or are being discussed.
- BCEC members must not have any pre-existing commitments concerning the application of any particular applicants or potential applicants.
- Each BCEC member is expected to pursue the stated objectives of the BCEC, to comply with the rules and procedures and to support the decisions the BCEC makes.
- At no time shall any member of BCEC act in a way that would bring the BCEC into disrepute or undermine the integrity of the process by which the BCEC makes its decisions.
5. Confidentiality and Privacy
- All BCEC members will safeguard all internal BCEC communications concerning the applicants and treat them as private, confidential, and for the use of BCEC members and At-Large staff only, without exception.
- A list of candidates names and portions of their Statement of Interest that are not of a personal nature will be published and made publicly available. BCEC members will not disclose outside of the BCEC any personal details as well as any discussions, deliberations, communications, records or notes, regarding the creation of the slate.
- BCEC members may be expected to warrant that their actions have been conducted without outside influence.
- When communicating confidential materials by electronic means, BCEC members agree to:
- take all reasonable precautions and use best efforts to maintain the confidentiality of both the storage and the communication of all BCEC information;
- not attempt to receive, generate, access or store confidential information on computers that are not under their personal control, unless permitted by other procedures of the BCEC;
- notify the BCEC Chair if a computer used to store confidential material by electronic means has been stolen or otherwise compromised; and
- take responsibility for observing the relevant applicable law regarding Personal Data Protection in their respective countries of residence.
- BCEC members shall destroy all confidential materials related to the work of the BCEC, when the work of the BCEC has ended or when no longer serving on the BCEC.
6. Formal Statement of Commitment to this code and procedures
- I understand the core objectives of the BCEC and fully agree to strictly adhere to this code and operating procedures as well as the ICANN Conflict of Interests Policy (as may be amended from time to time), and that failure to do so will constitute grounds for my immediate removal from the BCEC.
- By my signature below, I certify that I have read and understood the above provisions of the above provisions and that I agree to follow them.
- _______________________________________
- Signature
- ______________________
- Date
- _______________________________________
- Name
2 comments:
1. Suggestion for ABSC's role:
The central rationale for using an ABSC to select a Board Director is to identify a
moderate number of candidates who all meet the minimum criteria agreed by concensus
and required for an ICANN director selected by At-Large.
ABSC's role is to select individuals of the highest integrity and capability who place
the broad public interest of the global internet community ahead of any particular
interests, and who are knowledgeable about both ICANN’s and At Large's mission and
environment.
2. Alan suggested that the lines be numbered so we can refer to a line number when we make a comment here. IMHO numbering each and every statement is the first step to getting work done on this document. Thanks!
Olivier C-L
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2010-02-23 13:18:57 GMT
I have made substantive edits to 3 & 4 and replaced all references to NomCom by ABSC, as appropriate
contributed by carlton.samuels@gmail.com on 2010-02-23 14:15:30 GMT
Carlton, I thought we decided not to make changes to the document itself which requires other team members to do detailed revision comparisons to see what was done.
contributed by alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca on 2010-02-26 04:48:10 GMT
Here is an attempt to make section 3 on the ABSC role closer to what has been described. For each point, I am including the original text, and my proposal.
1-current. ABSC is responsible for the selection of the At-Large member of the ICANN Board of Directors.
1-proposal. The ABSC is responsible for identifying a slate of candidates for the position of At-Large Director. The size of the slate is not specified, but at least one candidate must be named, and it is not expected that the number will exceed four.
2-current. The central rationale for using a selection committee to select a NEEDS to be re Written portion of the ICANN leadership bodies is to balance those who can represent particular areas of knowledge and interests with those who place the broad public interest of the global Internet community ahead of any particular interests. ABSC’s role is to select individuals of the highest integrity and capability who place the broad public interest of the global Internet community ahead of any particular interests, and who are nevertheless knowledgeable about ICANN’s mission and environment.
2-proposed. The central rationale for using a selection committee to identify candidates who, in the minds of the ABSC members, would each make an excellent At-large Director. All such candidates must be of the highest integrity and capability, who place the broad public interest of the global Internet community ahead of any particular interests, and who are nevertheless knowledgeable about ICANN’s mission and environment. Within these constraints, the ABSC may choose to offer the electors a range of candidates representing the diversity associated with the At-Large Community.
3-current. To achieve this broad public-interest orientation, the members of ABSC are drawn from across the At-Large. They act only on behalf of the interests of the global Internet community in general and the At-Large constituency in particular within the scope of the ICANN mission and the responsibilities assigned to the ALAC by ICANN Bylaws. They act as representatives of the At-Large constituency in ICANN and are beholden to the At-Large as they work by consensus to derive the ABSC slates of Selected Nominees for a seat on the ICANN Board of Directors.
3-proposed. To achieve this broad At-Large public-interest orientation, the members of ABSC are drawn from across the At-Large Community. They act only on behalf of the interests of the global Internet community in general and the At-Large Community in particular within the scope of the ICANN mission and the responsibilities assigned to the ALAC by ICANN Bylaws. They act as representatives of the At-Large constituency in ICANN and are beholden to the At-Large as they work by consensus to derive the ABSC slate of selected nominees for a seat on the ICANN Board of Directors.
4-current. The ABSC functions independently from the ICANN Board and Supporting Organizations but acts within parameters defined by the ALAC. The ABSC selections are final; no further approval or ratification is needed.
4-proposed. The ABSC functions independently from other ICANN entities, but acts within parameters defined by the ALAC. The ABSC selections are final; no further approval or ratification is needed.
contributed by alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca on 2010-02-26 05:11:27 GMT
Confidentiality: We have had a number of discussions on whether or not the SOIs in part or in whole should be public or confidential.
I think that there is probably close to unanimity that references (both who they are and the contents of their comments) be confidential.
On looking at the rest of the proposed SOI, I see little that would be considered particularly confidential, except the fact that the person has submitted an SOI.
So, from my point of view, there are just two questions that we need to ask.
1. Do we make the list of names of the candidates public?
2. If so, do we make the contents of the SOI (excluding references and perhaps telephone or residence address if we include those) public.
If the answer to 1 is YES, then I believe the answer to 2 should also be YES.
Now, should the answer to 1 be YES or NO. The benefits of NO is that people who apply by are not accepted do not suffer any public loss-of-face. This is important, particularly in some cultures. Perhaps as important, it protects the ABSC members form some level of pressure from the community, and particularly from those RALOs that appointed them. It may be a lot harder for the ABSC members to follow their conscience if they afterwards need to justify to their communities why a particular person was rejected.
The benefit of YES is that it demonstrates more openness.
I think that this particular issue needs to be the subject of discussion at our next ABSdt meeting.
contributed by alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca on 2010-02-26 05:25:04 GMT
I believe that we can go only so far in respecting cultural sensibility and show fealty to the requirement for transparency. So, YES to a publication of list of candidates and YES to disclosure of selected contents of SOI
contributed by carlton.samuels@gmail.com on 2010-02-27 00:21:39 GMT
My answers to the two questions are YES.
With respect to 2, we shall comply with the basic principles on data protection by excluding the sensitive personal information (telephone number, email etc) and seeking prior consent of the candidate on data disclosure.
contributed by hongxueipr@gmail.com on 2010-02-27 02:06:57 GMT
Alan wrote:
> 1. Do we make the list of names of the candidates public?
> 2. If so, do we make the contents of the SOI (excluding references and perhaps telephone or residence address if we >include those) public.
> If the answer to 1 is YES, then I believe the answer to 2 should also be YES.
Making the list of applicants public might deter some candidates from applying, as you rightly point out. Nevertheless I don't feel strongly on this, so whilst I had registered my opposition to this, I will not fight for the NO if others see the benefit of YES. Certainly, I can understand the benefit to make the candidate list public for the benefit of transparency.
As for making the rest of the SOI public I have to disagree. The information given in an SOI is often very personal and in some cases, reads like a detailed history of one's career. If this information is made public, it opens the door to it being used for Identity Fraud. On one side, there are extensive appeals to people to refrain from making all information about themselves public, and on the other side, we'd publish a detailed career plan for them?
Of course, we could go around this by asking the applicant whether they wish to make their career/motivation information public. However, the nature of such a question in the context of a SOI leading to an election puts unfair pressure on a candidate to say "yes" in order to avoid being accused for lack of transparency.
Now we might find a middle ground, if we chose to make only certain parts of the SOI public (clearly tagged in the application form as being a part which will be made public). At that point, we can make refrain from asking the embarrassing question asking for consent to make the information public.
contributed by ocl@gih.com on 2010-03-02 09:48:58 GMT
"Trust and respect all members of ABSC" as an objective of the ABSC? Um, well......coming from the academy I know about collegiality...both seamy sides of it.....but this one in this context may be a little indulgent.........
contributed by carlton.samuels@gmail.com on 2010-03-04 14:53:34 GMT
Under Section 2 part 1. I changed the word 'nominate' to "...and seek nominations from..." to be in keeping with our recent discussions on this matter.
Under Section 3 point 1, changed 'elected' to selected' as we discussed in Nairobi
Under Sec 6 part 1. I altered the words ".... immediate removal from the Nom Com." to read "...immediate removal from the Committee.."
contributed by langdonorr@gmail.com on 2010-03-18 05:54:17 GMT
Re Alan's proposed text alternates for Sec 3 of the document I am happy to accept all these proposed text changes BUT wish to alter proposed 3.2 to read "...the At-Large electorate a range of candidates..." as we offer several options of electorate definition in the WP and we do need to deal with the matter of verification and right to be in the electorate as raised by Dennis & Ray at our meeting with SIC and BGC members in Nairobi => to this end assuming we identify the At-Large Electorate fore the purposes of this selection process as the ALAC and RALO Leaders we can provide both clear verification of the individuals who are the electorate and accountability back to the whole of At-Large.
and
3.3 last sentence to read "...They act as representatives of the At-Large constituency in ICANN and are beholden to the At-Large as they work by consensus to derive the Committees slate of nominees for a seat on the ICANN Board of Directors." < replace ABSC with Committees & remove 'selected'>
NOTE replacement of most in body text reference to ABSC with 'the Committee' or 'Committees' might be a good idea and then we can just state that after definition of the name of the ABSC it shall be hereafter referred to as 'the Committee'
contributed by langdonorr@gmail.com on 2010-03-18 06:17:04 GMT
I think the ABSC's candidate selection procedure should be outlined. Whether a majority vote is required among ABSC members? Whether the selection is obtained through concensus or any other means..everything should be outlined here in the rules of procedures
contributed by dave@isoc-mu.org on 2010-03-23 12:33:37 GMT
"draft mandatory and desirable candidate characteristics"
As mentioned on the call, the "draft" should be omitted, once the document returns from Legal.
In fact, since should be amended accordingly since the other document was renamed:
"Mandatory and Desirable Applicant Criteria"
contributed by ocl@gih.com on 2010-04-09 13:28:26 GMT
