[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom February Report Card

[Brenden Kuerbis]

Hi Avri, Bill, everyone,

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:06 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On Feb 16, 2017, at 19:21, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think most people know it is not worth the effort to go before an all
> male committee and hope they will choose a woman.
>
> <snip>


> .  On could carry the exercise back to the beginning and add in applicant
> pools to get a global assessment of the pattern over time, and I would hope
> that the current NomCom Review Committee would do this.  Either way, I most
> certainly would not be telling female candidates not to apply based on the
> above facts.  We need to encourage applicants, not deter them, please.
>
> As to NC composition, I have suggested to colleagues that the appointing
> SOACs should really try to follow a rotation principle, rather than
> continually appointing men to the NC.  Some parts of the community
> systematically have more trouble doing this than others; NCUC and ALAC
> appear to have been the best, and I hope that my replacement as of Abu
> Dhabi will be consistent with this principle. I also hope that the current
> external NomCom Review will make a recommendation to this end; perhaps our
> representatives on it can update as to whether consideration is being given
> to the matter.
>
>
Thanks for raising these issues.

First, a bit of an apology for not updating everyone sooner.  ICANN
published the Request for Proposals on Jan 19:

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-nomcom-review-19jan17-en.pdf

In it there is language addressing the issues raised above:

B. Accountability and transparency to the public
> How can the NomCom selection process be improved, including but not
> limited to transparency, accountability, diversity and representativeness?
> C. NomCom Composition, membership processes and participation
> Does the outcome of the selection processes of the various SO/ACs to the
> NomCom, including those of the GNSO’s Stakeholder Groups and
> Constituencies, lead to a functional, diverse, and representative NomCom?
> Does representation in the current NomCom structure appropriately match
> ICANN’s goals of diversity and representativeness – if not, how could the
> structure of the NomCom change to reflect that remit better?




So while the eventual methodological approach may vary, I would expect the
selected Independent Assessor to confront diversity questions in its report
and to collect and analyze historical data. And once the research begins I
would especially encourage anyone interviewed to raise their concerns.

Just an additional note about timeline.  ICANN is currently receiving and
reviewing responses, the Working Party is expecting to get an update on
that process sometime during the Copenhagen meeting.

Hope that helps, please feel to ask or contact me with any further
questions about the WP process.

-- Brenden


---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org







>
>
>
>
> ************************************************
> 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
> ************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170220/a939fd02/attachment-0002.html>