Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
There are a few issue mentioned here that are worth addressing: - As we can only pick one person to speak for At-Large on the Board, we don't have the luxury of affecting its gender, racial or regional diversity. The NomCom is already charged with this. It is critical that we pick the best possible advocate of user interests possible. Especially in this inaugural role, there is little opportunity for any secondary objective. - Not having an "insider" is a worthy idea, but the fact of the matter is that existing insiders have a provable public record of interest and skill in ICANN affairs and a track record of end-user advocacy. Those are, whether we like it or not, very strong qualities in a candidate. While it is a nice --- one could even say romantic --- notion to have a complete outsider come in and serve the role well, a known history of awareness and passion cannot and should not count against someone. - Evan (sent from my Android phone) On 21 Aug 2010 08:40, "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick@vande-walle.eu> wrote: On 20 Aug 2010, at 23:55, Annette Muehlberg wrote:
Dear all,
This is a very special moment:... Nothing against Avri personnally, but I thought the whole idea was to avoid choosing ICANN insiders and bring new blood to the Board. I would say we should avoid choosing anyone who has been on an AC or SO for the last 3 years (and this includes current and recent ALAC members and RALO leaders).
Patrick Vande Walle _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.ic... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Le 21/08/2010 14:11, Evan Leibovitch a écrit :
There are a few issue mentioned here that are worth addressing:
- As we can only pick one person to speak for At-Large on the Board, we don't have the luxury of affecting its gender, racial or regional diversity. The NomCom is already charged with this. It is critical that we pick the best possible advocate of user interests possible. Especially in this inaugural role, there is little opportunity for any secondary objective.
Evan, I know that you are one of those that have always defended non-English speakers. But here I am not understanding you very well. 1- we are not here speaking about gender nor racial nor diversity on other basis rather the first and more important element imposed by the bylaws which the regional balance. 2- I don't consider the regional balance as "Lux" but it is "vital" 3- I am sure that you agree that there is may be someone in "Less Considered Regions" the "Best possible advocate".
- Not having an "insider" is a worthy idea, but the fact of the matter is that existing insiders have a provable public record of interest and skill in ICANN affairs and a track record of end-user advocacy. Those are, whether we like it or not, very strong qualities in a candidate. While it is a nice --- one could even say romantic --- notion to have a complete outsider come in and serve the role well, a known history of awareness and passion cannot and should not count against someone.
I have seen many "non insider" new board member appointed by NomCom becoming very strong board members.
- Evan (sent from my Android phone)
On 21 Aug 2010 08:40, "Patrick Vande Walle"<patrick@vande-walle.eu> wrote:
On 20 Aug 2010, at 23:55, Annette Muehlberg wrote:
Dear all,
This is a very special moment:...
Nothing against Avri personnally, but I thought the whole idea was to avoid choosing ICANN insiders and bring new blood to the Board. I would say we should avoid choosing anyone who has been on an AC or SO for the last 3 years (and this includes current and recent ALAC members and RALO leaders).
Patrick Vande Walle
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.ic...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 21 August 2010 10:12, Khaled KOUBAA <khaled.koubaa@topnet.tn> wrote:
I know that you are one of those that have always defended non-English speakers. But here I am not understanding you very well. 1- we are not here speaking about gender nor racial nor diversity on other basis rather the first and more important element imposed by the bylaws which the regional balance.
That is a worthy mandate imposed on ICANN itself, but not specifically on At-Large. The NomCom has an obligation to ensure regional balance, and it is able to select many Directors in order to achieve that balance. By contrast, At-Large can only choose one, fully independent of the diversity initiatives which the NomCom must already consider. We cannot be making our decision of Board representative while (at the same time) worrying if we must correct what might be perceived as a deficiency of diversity in the NomComm selections.
2- I don't consider the regional balance as "Lux" but it is "vital"
I am in complete agreement that it is vital for the ICANN Board as a whole, but it is a luxury for the single solitary selection that At-Large is forced to make.
3- I am sure that you agree that there is may be someone in "Less Considered Regions" the "Best possible advocate".
Of that, I have no doubt at all. I am saying that being the "best possible advocate" must be the primary criterion (and maybe even the only one for this first selection), regardless of where the candidate lives. I have seen many "non insider" new board member appointed by NomCom
becoming very strong board members.
I agree. Indeed, I am hoping that some very worthy people step forward to be considered. (Usually the NomnComm receives many many applications for Board positions. I wonder how many of them might be suitable as an At-Large designee?) However I am (strongly) against the notion that we eliminate from consideration (either procedurally or mentally) people who have a record of work as an ICANN volunteer simply because of that involvement. If anything, an ICANN history offers a relatively easy way to verify a nominee's claim of being worthy for the role. Such an open history could even work against someone's candidacy -- but it must not disqualify them. - Evan
I agree. Indeed, I am hoping that some very worthy people step forward to be considered. (Usually the NomnComm receives many many applications for Board positions. I wonder how many of them might be suitable as an At-Large designee?)
I wonder what good process we need to inform people about that opportunity, and what good process we need to select them. May be we should create our own NomCom ?
I am jumping a little late, maybe. I wan't to agree with Evan's opinions in both past emails. Also, we have our own process in At Large, there was a Bottom Up discussion in order to come up with that. Maybe it is not the greatest process but I believe that could be useful to determine who could be the "best advocate" for At Large at the Board. Regards, Andrés Piazza
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:49:14 +0100 From: khaled.koubaa@topnet.tn To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
I agree. Indeed, I am hoping that some very worthy people step forward to be considered. (Usually the NomnComm receives many many applications for Board positions. I wonder how many of them might be suitable as an At-Large designee?)
I wonder what good process we need to inform people about that opportunity, and what good process we need to select them. May be we should create our own NomCom ?
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Hi Khaled Actually, At Large has created its own "NomCom" for this Board position. Interested candidates need to send in their statements of interest ASAP. The BCEC will do the due diligence on the candidates and send a slate/short list forward to the At Large voting group, which will then vote to pick the candidate. All the details are on the ALAC site. Hope this helps Jacqueline A. Morris On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Khaled KOUBAA <khaled.koubaa@topnet.tn>wrote:
I agree. Indeed, I am hoping that some very worthy people step forward to be considered. (Usually the NomnComm receives many many applications for Board positions. I wonder how many of them might be suitable as an At-Large designee?)
I wonder what good process we need to inform people about that opportunity, and what good process we need to select them. May be we should create our own NomCom ?
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I must agree with everything Evan said here - couldn't have said it better! D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Sat 8/21/2010 11:01 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination On 21 August 2010 10:12, Khaled KOUBAA <khaled.koubaa@topnet.tn> wrote:
I know that you are one of those that have always defended non-English speakers. But here I am not understanding you very well. 1- we are not here speaking about gender nor racial nor diversity on other basis rather the first and more important element imposed by the bylaws which the regional balance.
That is a worthy mandate imposed on ICANN itself, but not specifically on At-Large. The NomCom has an obligation to ensure regional balance, and it is able to select many Directors in order to achieve that balance. By contrast, At-Large can only choose one, fully independent of the diversity initiatives which the NomCom must already consider. We cannot be making our decision of Board representative while (at the same time) worrying if we must correct what might be perceived as a deficiency of diversity in the NomComm selections.
2- I don't consider the regional balance as "Lux" but it is "vital"
I am in complete agreement that it is vital for the ICANN Board as a whole, but it is a luxury for the single solitary selection that At-Large is forced to make.
3- I am sure that you agree that there is may be someone in "Less Considered Regions" the "Best possible advocate".
Of that, I have no doubt at all. I am saying that being the "best possible advocate" must be the primary criterion (and maybe even the only one for this first selection), regardless of where the candidate lives. I have seen many "non insider" new board member appointed by NomCom
becoming very strong board members.
I agree. Indeed, I am hoping that some very worthy people step forward to be considered. (Usually the NomnComm receives many many applications for Board positions. I wonder how many of them might be suitable as an At-Large designee?) However I am (strongly) against the notion that we eliminate from consideration (either procedurally or mentally) people who have a record of work as an ICANN volunteer simply because of that involvement. If anything, an ICANN history offers a relatively easy way to verify a nominee's claim of being worthy for the role. Such an open history could even work against someone's candidacy -- but it must not disqualify them. - Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
I also agree with what Eva has said and stated. I think regional representation is not enough - The composition of Board Membership should also be more 'inclusive' by selecting Directors from a wider range of stakeholders. 'Diversity' should mean the acknowledgement of the Laws and Regulations as globally as practically possible (I asked about this issue at the Mar de Plata meeting - I am still naive and not a Law person). Yassin Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:26:01 -0400 From: DThompson@gov.nu.ca To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination Message body I must agree with everything Evan said here - couldn't have said it better! D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Sat 8/21/2010 11:01 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination On 21 August 2010 10:12, Khaled KOUBAA <khaled.koubaa@topnet.tn> wrote:
I know that you are one of those that have always defended non-English speakers. But here I am not understanding you very well. 1- we are not here speaking about gender nor racial nor diversity on other basis rather the first and more important element imposed by the bylaws which the regional balance.
That is a worthy mandate imposed on ICANN itself, but not specifically on At-Large. The NomCom has an obligation to ensure regional balance, and it is able to select many Directors in order to achieve that balance. By contrast, At-Large can only choose one, fully independent of the diversity initiatives which the NomCom must already consider. We cannot be making our decision of Board representative while (at the same time) worrying if we must correct what might be perceived as a deficiency of diversity in the NomComm selections.
2- I don't consider the regional balance as "Lux" but it is "vital"
I am in complete agreement that it is vital for the ICANN Board as a whole, but it is a luxury for the single solitary selection that At-Large is forced to make.
3- I am sure that you agree that there is may be someone in "Less Considered Regions" the "Best possible advocate".
Of that, I have no doubt at all. I am saying that being the "best possible advocate" must be the primary criterion (and maybe even the only one for this first selection), regardless of where the candidate lives. I have seen many "non insider" new board member appointed by NomCom
becoming very strong board members.
I agree. Indeed, I am hoping that some very worthy people step forward to be considered. (Usually the NomnComm receives many many applications for Board positions. I wonder how many of them might be suitable as an At-Large designee?) However I am (strongly) against the notion that we eliminate from consideration (either procedurally or mentally) people who have a record of work as an ICANN volunteer simply because of that involvement. If anything, an ICANN history offers a relatively easy way to verify a nominee's claim of being worthy for the role. Such an open history could even work against someone's candidacy -- but it must not disqualify them. - Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (6)
-
Andres Piazza -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline Morris -
Khaled KOUBAA -
Thompson, Darlene -
Yassin Mshana