Several months ago, we talked about forming (or perhaps reforming since there was one when Olivier was Chair) a candidate selection committee to make recommendations to the ALAC on the appointment of people to various positions. There are generally two kinds of positions that we consider: 1. Positions appointed to (or recommended for appointment to, when the ALAC does not have the final say) various groups within ICANN. Examples include Cross-Community Working Groups (under the current rules used for the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability, and in the Draft CCWG Framework under consideration), Affirmation of Commitments Reviews (a name that probably will change under the pending Bylaw changes) and the CSC overseeing the new IANA. In these cases, the appointee has a responsibility to work with the ALAC and At-Large, but does not normally formally represent them (thus we have found that the appointed members of the CCWG-Accountability have at times had different positions on some issues). 2. Positions where the person is a Liaison to other bodies, generally within ICANN, and formally represents the ALAC in those groups. Moreover, in some cases, there are specific requirements that must be met. In the past, we have not used a selection committee for this second type of appointment, but the importance of them is such that I think that we should have formal discussions on the candidates before an ALAC vote. Moreover, our Rules of Procedure allow the ALAC to re-appoint Liaisons without opening nominations, a practice that some people have felt is not appropriate. A selection committee would be an ideal place to hold the discussion on whether to do so in any given case. The issue has been discussed within the ALT, and the general feeling is that in the case of the first class of appointments, there should be a committee similar to that used when Olivier was Chair. Specifically, a group composed of ten people, led by the ALAC Chair, with five of its members selected by RALOs (according to their own rules ands standards) and five selected by the ALAC, one per region in each case. Such an ALAC committee is in accordance with RoP Section 18.3. Most (or perhaps all) ALT members feel that using the ALT itself as the ALAC Members on the selection committee makes sense (perhaps augmented by one additional person from the Chair's region). The ALT is selected annually to represent the interests of the regions on the leadership team, already works well together and is geared up for quick responses. But that is open for discussion. For appointments of Liaisons and any other positions that formally represent the ALAC, there is a strong (but not unanimous) belief in the ALT that such recommendations must be made by ALAC members. Ultimately, people recommended by this group must represent the ALAC and it is ALAC members that must pass judgement. Again, I think the ALT is an easy choice for but other alternatives are possible. I would have no problem with the RALO appointees also participating in the discussions, since they would already understand the confidentiality issues related to personnel selection. Note that in all cases, the selection committee has the option of providing one or more candidates for the consideration of the ALAC, but with the assurance that all candidates presented to the ALAC meet at the very least the minimum requirements. I would appreciate comments so we can refine this quickly and approve it in Helsinki. ALT Members who have varying opinions are of course welcome to clearly state their positions. Alan