[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

[William Drake]

Hi Brenden

Thanks for this, very helpful.  

> On Nov 26, 2016, at 21:17, Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
My only concern was that the nominal topic being was unduly being mixed up with perceived electoral stuff, posturing and assertions that aren’t helpful.  If we can now have a serious discussion that’s actually on the NomCom Review, great.
> 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.
> 
Ok.  Could you give us a little mapping of at what points in time what kinds of inputs will be possible, beyond trying to influence the contractor’s initial project design?
> 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?
> 
Right, this is the way to formulate it, open question to explore, not we demand x because we are good but oppressed etc.
> 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?
> 
Just three more off the top of my head:

I’d think we certainly want the contractor to look at the institutional memory questions that the 2016-7 NCs have been debating.  As I’ve said a couple times, it’s madness that each NC starts from scratch and has to waste time reinventing each and every wheel, and has no access to prior NCs’ discussions of the very same points as something to at least take into consideration when charting its own course.

Re: decision processes, the way the polling and basketing works needs a hard look, as decisions made at Time T1 are often regretted at T2 and T3, in part because people couldn’t fully understand at T1 how their first cut would shape things up later.

Criteria of evaluation are another concern.  What attributes are we rating, how. Important because I think “new blood” and “familiar faces” can be viewed a bit differently by members in ways that are not helpful.  In particular, I argued last year that in reviewing the latter we needed to bracket our accumulated personal perceptions of people based on prior interactions and tribal dynamics and treat community members in the same manner as the former, e.g. based on how they look on paper, at least until we deep dive and have more data points. It’s not good to have members looking at an applicant in the early stages and saying oh s/he’s divisive or a tourist or whatever as this can color perceptions unfairly going forward.

We might want to create a wiki space or something where those of you on the Review group can catalog your and members inputs etc. together with time line etc.

Happy Sunday,

Bill



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161127/b5d0f2c6/attachment-0002.html>