Well if you guys have decided this fine. I have no strong opposition to nomcom populating interim board. I just don't think the rationale of nomcom balancing up is convincing enough. It's an interim board for goodness sake, why do we have to grow and make it interesting unnecessarily.

It was clear how SO/ALAC would provide their interim nomination (which is by indicating the names when initiating the board spilling process), are we expecting nomcom to do the same? What do we stand to risk if nomcom did not populate interim? Are we saying populating interim from the entire community is not balanced enough?
All we need is an interim that knows why the current board is spilled, and the need for them to operate minimally till the full board is constituted. I don't expect the interim to be an ambitious team as such and that's why I think sourcing it's membership externally is too ambitious an effort and may not worth the effort/resource.

On 24 Jul 2015 5:28 am, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

Hi all

To clarify for Seun:

On 24 July 2015 at 15:46, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Jul 2015 7:41 pm, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think this point has moved on a bit, based on the call earlier today.

>
The NomCom will not be putting up alternates. I believe where we are now is that the NomCom will (in the event of a spill) put up at least two and possibly up to eight interim directors at that time.
>
SO: I am trying to parse the statement above, the first part seem to say nomcom will not populate interim and the second part seem to imply otherwise.

Thomas is saying that the NomCom wouldn't have named alternate directors for specific posts sitting around waiting. But he's saying that should the Board be removed, we could permit NomCom, should it have suitable candidates available, would have to appoint 2 directors and could appoint up to 8. That's his view as expressed, and confirmed in the email he just sent.

>
I'm not sure but they may have the option of not putting up directors at all, but I think that did not come out on top in the call.
>
SO: Just to be clear, I am referring to interim board

Yes, so is Greg. In the call yesterday there was some preference for the NomCom being able to name directors to the Interim Board, because that helps ensure a more balanced Interim Board (which may sit for up to a third of the year). Otherwise it is just SO and ALAC nominees.

> NomCom gets more good candidates than they nominate, so there is a pool from which to draw on, should the time ever come.
>
SO: So we are encouraging nomcom to maintain a live pool, I thought nomcom pool always reset after each circle.

I don't think this is healthy in any way, I don't see the advantage of having nomcom populate interim. Most organisations think internal when it comes to anything "interim", that is not a coincidence it's to reduce complexity and ensure continuity because those internal already know the history.

What do you mean by internal?

It will not be all that difficult to ask NomCom to have in mind suitable prospective replacements.

There is also no prohibition proposed on people who are appointed to the Interim Board being further appointed to the Replacement Board. And so since the NomCom will have to be able to deal with that Replacement Board situation, a situation it doesn't have to deal with today, it should also be able to deal with the Interim Board situation.

cheers
Jordan

Regards

> I think this is right or close to it, but the next draft should clear this up.
>
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with this as well, although I thought there was clear direction on this subject in Paris.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>
>> On 23 Jul 2015 7:23 pm, "Cherine Chalaby" <cherine.chalaby@icann.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree. It does not make sense to ask NomCom to nominate alternates. Cherine
>>>>
>>>> On 23 Jul 2015, at 15:23, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree with not asking the NomCom to put up alternates. Spilling the Board should be so exceptional and a smaller exe board should be able to then launch a process, which could result in both elections and in appointments.
>>>> M
>>>>
>>>> > Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:13:13 +0100
>>>> > From: malcolm@linx.net
>>>> > To: jordan@internetnz.net.nz; wp1@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
>>>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] updated paper: Recall of the ICANN Board
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 23/07/2015 11:18, Jordan Carter wrote:
>>>> > > See my edits in the files beginning with 2015-07-23.
>>>> >
>>>> > One comment: I thought the general view in Paris was that NomCom would
>>>> > not nominate members of an interim Board. I doubt the practicality of
>>>> > requiring it to do so.
>>>> >
>>>> > That seems to have changed; perhaps I missed some discussion. Or
>>>> > misperceived the general view.
>>>> >
>>>> > Requiring NomCom to put up alternates at the AGM creates the "people
>>>> > standing in the shadows waiting for a chance" that were mentioned as a
>>>> > prospect to be avoided, and was accepted as a reason for not requiring
>>>> > SOs and ACs to nominate alternates with every appointment.
>>>> >
>>>> > Moreover, how will NomCom find people willing to commit to drop
>>>> > everything and become an interim director in the unlikely event of a
>>>> > Board spill, knowing that it is highly unlikely this will ever come to
>>>> > pass?
>>>> >
>>>> > It is surely much easier to ask someone "Will you agree to serve as a
>>>> > director now?" than "Will you agree to serve as a director in an
>>>> > unspecified number of months, should some very unlikely event come to
>>>> > pass?".
>>>> >
>>>> > For these reasons, I think that excusing NomCom from nominating interim
>>>> > directors is a better choice.
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>>>> > Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>>>> > London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>>>> >
>>>> > London Internet Exchange Ltd
>>>> > 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
>>>> >
>>>> > Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>>>> > Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
>>>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet