[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

[Brenden Kuerbis]

Hi all,

I'm just catching up on this thread, literally returning home from a brief
Thanksgiving holiday in the US.

First of all, thanks to everyone for the robust (albeit sometimes
wandering) discussion. I agree it's very helpful to hear members' thoughts
and factual background about this important topic. The discussion confirms
what has always been clear to many, the need for the review to cover both
Nomcom's  structure and process.

Now an update: We are still relatively early in this review process. The
Board developed RFP to select an independent reviewer came to the Working
Party on the 4th. We are currently making suggestions to be incorporated,
particularly regarding scope of work.  So our discussion here is quite well
timed. Proposed revisions will be turned around quickly as the RFP issue
date is in December, IIRC.

What we should contribute at this stage is identifying areas and questions
that the contractor should explore in its research. Suggestions on
methodology could also be helpful given shortcomings we've seen in other
review reports.

E.g., we could suggest the following structural question be added to what
the contractor is being asked to research:

Does representation in the current Nomcom structure appropriately match the
interests impacted by ICANN's policies? How should the representative
structure change to reflect evolution of those interests?

I suspect some interests would rather not even breech this subject. But we
can push to flag the issue for research without proposing potentially
controversial solutions at this time. Then interview subjects and comments
on the draft report can highlight shortcomings and propose solutions before
any final restructuring decision is taken by the board. But it's important
to ask the question now.

Concerning process, in addition to previuously mentioned items, here are a
couple more suggestions concerning community input, insider vs outsider
selections, and decision making:

Are ICANN's supporting, advisory and leadership components providing
adequate guidance as to the qualities and skills they desire in Nomcom
selections? If not, how should this process be improved?

To what extent should the Nomcom refrain from selecting board candidates
who have other means of being placed in board seats (e.g., candidates who
are already participants in ICANN SOs or ACs)?

What specific decision making processes and methods does the Nomcom employ
in its deliberations over and selection of candidates? How do these
processes and methods ensure that Nomcom decisions result in the selection
of the most suitable candidates? Are there processes and methods which can
and should be employed by every Nomcom?

That's all for now as it's my turn to drive! Hopefully some of the above
gets at what has been discussed here. If not, let me know. I'm happy to
review and incorporate suggested text to relay to the Working Party. We
meet next this coming Tuesday the 29th.

-- Brenden

On Nov 26, 2016 8:56 AM, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On Nov 26, 2016, at 14:17, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You gave us the link to the announcement of the NomCom2 review and at the
> bottom, it has a schedule that's been asking for participants' proposals on
> 18.11.2016. There are lots of other stages too, even before 1.2.2017. Did
> we help our representation in that group to make those proposals?
>
>
>
> I’m not on the group, would need to hear from Nadira Alaraj, Satish
> Babu, Hago Dafalla, and Brenden Kuerbis what how it’s going, if the
> timeline has evolved, what’s needed when, etc.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161126/d4600c0b/attachment-0002.html>