Jon, That’s an important question. I can’t speak for any of the other groups, but I’ve watched SSAC from its inception. I may be biased, but I think SSAC maintains a desire to be inclusive. There are some other factors that are also always on their mind. A key one is competence, i.e. does a prospective member know the subject area and having something to contribute. Another is burnout. Capture is always possible, but I think the group is strongly oriented toward diversity — not just gender and geographic diversity but technical diversity. I would expect that if the group did fall into a mode of being too insular, the review process or other external processes might shine a light on the problem. Steve

On Sep 8, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> wrote:

Wondering whether or not it Is a good practice for a group to choose its own members at the exclusion of others. Is there risk of capture and discrimination? If so, what are the potential solutions to minimize that risk?

...

On Sep 8, 2017, at 4:21 PM, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org> wrote:

Avri, et al,

FWIW, SSAC adopted a term limit rule. It did so on its own without pressure from the Board or elsewhere.

Implementation detail: The bylaws say the Board appoints SSAC members. I don’t recall the exact wording, but the interpretation includes the Board appointing the chair. What’s evolved in practice, however, is SSAC chooses its own members and elects its own chair. These decisions are then sent to the Board for formal approval. SSAC has been careful over the years to select well qualified people and to elect quite competent chairs, so the Board has never been presented with a difficult case.

SSAC also has a liaison on the Board. The bylaws place no limits on the length of time a liaison can serve. In principle, it’s an annual appointment and can be renewed indefinitely. And if the appointing body happens not to formally renew the appointment, the incumbent automatically continues. SSAC has chosen to package this into three year terms, i.e. to appoint someone and then reappoint him or her automatically the next two years, thereby creating a de facto three year term. Further, I believe they have adopted a limit on the number of terms the liaison can serve. (All of this is written down in their operational manual. Julie Hedlund in David Olive’s group has ready access to it and can provide a copy.)

I share this as a worked example. Use it or not, as desired.

Steve

...

On Sep 8, 2017, at 4:10 PM, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote:

Hi,

Yes, one implements a program. A group considering and recording the consideration is an action/activity that would need to be implemented.

The suggestion here is that formal consideration by a group of term limits is a good practice.

It is not a question of considering implementation, it is about implementing consideration.

Avri

On 08-Sep-17 15:46, Steve DelBianco wrote:

...

Avri — we are recommending Good Practices that the group believes are worth implementing (if applicable).

None of the other 28 Good Practices suggest to “consider” something to do. All are suggestive that implementation is a good practice, and all our recommendations imply that AC/SO/Groups should therefore “consider" implementation.

Steve

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of avri doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org>> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017

Hi,

My understanding was that the statement being discussed was whether they should consider term limits.

I think this is an important difference. And I think that strengthening the statement into something that is easier to disagree with, is unfortunate.

I think the act of considering the need for term limits is all that is required. You are right, it is not best for all. But considering whether to impose them or not is a good practice as it gives those who hold positions without term limits who may see no reason for term limits, to be challenged by those out of power who may think they are needed. At this point there is no recommendation that all SOAC/AG/C consider term limits so those who want them may be flat out of luck.

I suggest that we avoid change the wording of the recommendation and that we support the recommendation that all entities consider whether they need term limits or not.

I personally believe that yes, we should add the consideration of terms limits as a good practice.

avri

On 08-Sep-17 09:27, Steve DelBianco wrote:

As discussed on our SOAC team call yesterday, we are nearly finished with our public comment responses <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uAjMUtnaigi5-zSMGmmIbvFNcPxGQC0cMB_a...> and updated recommendation <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sT6SscZLT7VK2rVFOMPaiK1Qd8vlVLkm0boRX7I8...> to the CCWG.

One remaining question is whether to add an additional Good Practice to the 28 we already have in our report.

The purpose of this email is to hear from all members of SOAC-Accountability as to whether our report should include this new proposed Good Practice:

*An AC/SO/Group that elects its officers should impose term limits. *

Note that this proposed Good Practice would _only_ apply to AC/SO/Groups that have elections. And as with all of our Good Practices, we describe applicability in our Executive Summary:

In Track 1 we recommend 29 Good Practices that each SO/AC/Group should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required. Nor do we recommend any changes to the ICANN bylaws. We do recommend that Operational Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in the AC/SO subject to the review.

And we include this caveat on page 8:

"AC/SO/Groups are only expected to implement Good Practices to the extent that these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices, in the view of AC/SO/Group participants. Again, we do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required by AC/SO/Groups.”

Please reply to all by 11-Sep with your view on whether we should add Term Limits as a Good Practice.

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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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