[NCUC-DISCUSS] [Info] Call for candidates for NCUC Delegate to the ICANN 2017 Nominating Committee

[Dan Krimm]

I always support Bill for whatever he is up for.  :-)

That said, the point about "first year orientation dance" leads me to
wonder about whether we might consider an expanded organizational structure
surrounding this role.

I had experience in the past with one NPO that had a sort of rolling team
in place for its executive directorship: there was always a current ED, but
in addition they had formal designation for "ED-in-training" who would take
over the position in the following term, as well as "past-ED" who had been
in the position the previous term.

So it was a sort of triumvirate, where one individual had the actual
decision-making power (and made the largest time commitment), but the
veteran was available on-call for advice and institutional memory, while a
less-experienced individual was systematically looking-in and learning the
ropes as an observer.

This would probably be a bit cumbersome for all NCUC representative
positions, but if the learning curve issue is important enough in this
case, perhaps something from this idea might be incorporated for this case?

I imagine for our Chairs there is an informal version of this that goes on
anyway (with past Chairs being available to advise current Chairs, and new
candidates for Chair tend to be those with a certain degree of experience
in the group).  I just wonder if there is any value to formalizing this in
the case of NomCom rep, given the formal 2-year-max framework?

Dan



At 4:38 PM +0200 8/2/16, William Drake wrote:
>Hello
>
>Thanks much folks for the various expressions of support.  I would indeed
>like to serve on the 2017 NomCom.  I worked pretty hard on the 2016
>committee and am ready to do it again. 
>
>As a couple people indicated, this is a position in which a second year
>makes sense because one's effectiveness increases the more you learn the
>game and demonstrate an ability to listen and offer good judgement,
>etc.  That's why the represented groups generally seem to reappoint their
>people, as has
>NCUC <http://www.ncuc.org/participate/ncuc->http://www.ncuc.org/participate/ncuc-appointments/.  (In
>fact a number of colleagues already indicated at our Helsinki meeting that
>they'd be back, which should help with the efforts I mentioned previously
>to improve our procedures and institutional memory).  It's also why the
>2014 Board Working Group on the NomCom recommended that the terms for all
>voting members should be for two years, with no member allowed to serve
>for two consecutive terms.  Its recs were set aside because key ones were
>horrid, but this one arguably made sense.
>
>Looking to our future representation, perhaps I should say that it's also
>a position in which veteran experience going in is rather helpful.  To be
>effective one needs background on the diverse players, interests and
>shared histories in the community.  I'd suggest that the best trajectory
>into the NomCom is to first serve in another capacity, e.g. NCUC EC or
>GNSO Council, where one has a group of colleagues and support to move up
>the learning curve.  In contrast, in the NomCom the NCUC rep is alone in a
>group of 15 votes/17 voices.   Advocating balanced, high quality
>appointments that are at least not hostile to noncommercial concerns can
>be challenging.   
>
>Further to the last point - Ed rightly mentioned the intra-GNSO
>imbalance.  A number of us have indeed raised the lack of NPOC
>representation in various contexts and gotten pushback from the
>board.  Meanwhile the three CSG constituencies get four reps (two for the
>BC!) and contracted also gets two reps.  How this will evolve if/when we
>new DNS industry constituencies due to the new gTLD program is hard to
>say, but the above mentioned 2014 Board Working Group on the NomCom most
>certainly got it wrong in suggesting that NomCom should be restructured as
>follows to avoid "GNSO over-representation":
>
>- Five members appointed from the At-Large Advisory Committee, with one
>from each Regional At-Large Organization
>- Five members appointed from the ccNSO, with one from each geographic region
>- Five members appointed from the ASO, with one from each geographic region
>- Four members appointed from the GNSO, with one from each Stakeholder Group
>- Up to three members appointed from the GAC
>- One member each from the IAB (IETF), SSAC and RSSAC
>
>Luckily this generated an outcry and was not acted upon, but it indicates
>that composition is a can of worms to be reopened carefullyŠ
>
>Cheers,
>
>Bill
>
>*************************************************************
>William J. Drake
>International Fellow & Lecturer
>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
>william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>  www.williamdrake.org
>The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections
>New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
>*************************************************************
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss