[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

[William Drake]

Hi

Thanks Rafik for this sensible assessment of the nominal subject of this thread.   

> On Nov 25, 2016, at 07:29, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks Bill for sharing this.
> having experienced nomcom as NCUC representative in 2013, I am cautious regarding focusing too much on the representation issue. I am not sure that trying to arrange the numbers will fix the issue or if there is even a right number.  the concerns are legitimate however we need think about the full picture.

Right, as you know from experience, a simple commercial/noncommercial binary doesn’t really explain how the NomCom works or the selections it makes.  Which of course is not to say that a better balance wouldn't be helpful.  Of course, our chances of actually securing that balance in a multistakeholder community by engaging in antagonistic discourse or claiming to be the sole and heroic defenders of truth and justice are about zero.
> 
> I hope that the nomcom review will focus more on the process and how nomcom operates, decision making, role of chairs, also other aspect like institutional memory between outgoing and incoming nomcoms. basically, reviewing the structure and the processes to provide recommendations for real improvement.

Right. As I’ve said here before, the 2016 & 2017 NCs are taking up some of these issues within the constraints of our mandate and work program, but significant change beyond that threshold would require consensus via the board mandated review.
> 
> what matters at the end is the outcome of nomcom: appointing candidates to different leadership positions. The challenge always remain regarding how to increase the pool of candidate and having more noncommercial candidates with strong chances to be selected.

Yes, emphatically.

Cheers

Bill
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2016-11-24 18:43 GMT+09:00 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>:
> Hi
> 
>> On Nov 24, 2016, at 02:02, Karel Douglas <douglaskarel at gmail.com <mailto:douglaskarel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Raoul,
>> 
>> And please continue your efforts to get positive changes in the NOMCOM.
> 
> Just a reminder, as NomCom has been mentioned a couple times on the list lately:
> 
>> On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:11, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>> 
>> The next Board mandated review of the NomCom process is now scheduled, and the working party is to get underway in February.  Please have a look at https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-09-13-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-09-13-en> for details.  I hope we can have some noncommercial folks on the working party.  Knowledge of the NomCom is of course highly desirable.  
> 
> All the applicants were accepted and will form the WP that begins the process in February.  https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-10-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-10-en>  Four NCUC members are in the eleven person group--Nadira Alaraj, Satish Babu, Hago Dafalla, and Brenden Kuerbis (who represented us on the 2014 & 2015 NomComs).  So my suggestion would be that people interesting in advocating possible reforms work with our team (which I guess should include me) to develop inputs when the time is right.  I’d also suggest that such folks read through the background, including the outputs of the NomCom Review (2007–2010) and the 2014 Board Working Group on NomCom, which directly addressed questions of composition, albeit in a manner quite contrary to our interests.  I’ve written here previously about that, and there was also a discussion of the matter on the list in December 2014, in the archives.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161125/28a37e26/attachment-0002.html>