[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Delegate to the ICANN 2016 NominatingCommittee

[Stephanie Perrin]

+1 Peter to your last point... I think we should try to figure out what 
a fair, workable process would be, it may take a while and a bit of 
discussion.
SP
On 2015-08-05 0:00, PeterGreen wrote:
> Before indicating my（standing as an individual NCUCer）support for 
> nominating Bill as the NCUC delegate for 2016 NomCom, I would like to 
> repsond to several notable points folks have made here:
>
> Remmy Nweke：
> {As much as you [Bill] are eminently qualified among others, I think 
> its high time NCUC begin to consider its delegation selection based on 
> geographic diversity as advised by the NomCom.
>
> Historically, I think the NomCom knows why that advisory on geographic 
> diversity is important and a glance at NCUC delegations in recent 
> years cannot prove to be in line with this.
>
> May be we should come up with a rotational delegation to cut across 
> all continents, moreso, when no one is a bank of knowledge. }
>
> Amr:
> > Personally, considering the greater diversity in NCUC’s membership (relative to other groups 
> within ICANN), I believe that regional diversity should always be a 
> priority for this constituency. This should not be limited to 
> leadership positions and other constituency selection processes, but 
> also in participation in GNSO working groups where regional (such as 
> African) participation is most important. How can we achieve African 
> representation in our policy positions without African interests being 
> presented as part of the discussions by those they affect the most?
> >
> > Having said that…, I’m not in favour of your proposal to have 
> rotational selection based on regions. NCUC has only one appointee to 
> the NomCom, and this appointment is too important to forgo appointing 
> the most appropriate individual in favour of other criteria, no matter 
> how laudable the reasons may be.
>
> *Agree with both Remmy and Amr that regional diversityis very 
> important for NCUC the Constituency and ICANN community, however, what 
> makes me to be inclined to echo Amr's point is that regional diversiy 
> should not only be limited to seleciton processes. When we say 
> regional diversity, especially in this case--selecting a NCUC delegate 
> for 2016 NomCom,  it is to say that NomCom would consider regional 
> diversity of its members for the whole NomCom structure, it is not 
> advising Stakeholder Groups or Constituencies to select delegates on a 
> special regional basis, **other criteria should also be considered. 
> **Saying so, I think regional rotation is not appropiriate for a 
> NomCom Delegation selection. **Please note the following :*
>
>   * Specific criteria for selecting a delegate to the NomCom is
>     provided in Article VII, Section 4 of ICANN’s Bylaws
>     (http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#VII)
>
> *“Section 4. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE DELEGATES*
> Delegates to the ICANN Nominating Committee shall be:
> 1. 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;
>
> 2. Persons with wide contacts, broad experience in the Internet 
> community, and a commitment to the success of ICANN;
>
> 3. Persons whom the selecting body is confident will consult widely 
> and accept input in carrying out their responsibilities;
>
> 4. 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;
>
> 5. 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
>
> 6. Persons who are able to work and communicate in written and spoken 
> English.”
>
>   * NomCom delegates should have a high level network of contacts
>     essential to candidate recruitment (and we hope the NCUC) - as
>     sending entity will support your delegate and help them with
>     outreach).
>
>   * Eligibility Exception - No person who is an employee of or paid
>     consultant to ICANN (including the Ombudsman) shall simultaneously
>     serve in any of the Nominating Committee positions as described in
>     Article VII, Section 2 of ICANN’s Bylaws
>     (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#VII-2).
>
>   * The person should be able to join monthly teleconferences
>     (typically 13:00 or 14:00 UTC).  Note that the committee's
>     workload _will increase_significantly during Apr/May/June 2016
>     when the candidate assessment process will be at its busiest.
>     Conference calls are held more frequently (typically weekly)
>     during this time as well.
>
>   * The person must be able to attend the NomCom selection meeting in
>     late June 2016.
>
>   * The person should be willing to work in a large,
>     consensus-oriented committee.
>
> Stephanie:
>
> > While I have already indicated my support for Bill, may I also suggest,
> > as a tired multiple commentator on the Westlake GNSO review, that we
> > need to ensure a lively, diverse field of candidates for all these
> > positions, so that we are not fulfilling the criticism of not enough
> > rotation of senior (travel-funded) positions in our
> > constituency/stakeholder group. I suspect no one will want to run
> > against Bill, but we do need to have elections, not acclamations.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Stephanie
> >
>
> *Yes, for transparency，I propose we need a procedural selection 
> process now.*
>
>
> Best Regards
> Peter
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20150805/7ba81c53/attachment-0002.html>