Hi Alejandro, On Apr 4, 2014, at 2:30 AM, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:

Adam,

this reply of mine will only go to some lists (it is too much cross-posted.)

And there still is. It's quite a collection of addresses.

Your admission in the last sentence is the key to simplifying this discussion of the ICANN NomCom and giving it some realistic focus.

You say that you often felt inadequate in judging the merits of candidates who were way above your capacity. You should have resigned at that very moment but let's skip that part and go into a more general statement.

I didn't quite say what you have interpreted me as saying. But it was a throw-away comment, and you got my meaning below:

The design of the NomCom foresaw an implementation in which every community that designates members of the NomCom would send a "senior statesperson", someone who would exert stewardship over the greater good, without disregarding that communities' own interests and driving principles. In practice this failed to happen. Instead frequently the communities designated non-independent, junior people who had to prove their merit to the community in the NomCom and could hope for some reward later on.

To a degree yes, too often I felt the NomCom delegate position wasn't much of priority to the sending group -- perhaps only welcome when someone realized it meant an extra person from their group being funded to attend a couple of meetings. On the other hand, there's usually a smattering of former board members or people with some equal experience in each committee. Though very few have experience in high-level recruitment, evaluation etc. People I've served with took their role seriously, worked hard, were honest, and produced overall good results. The process has improved over the years. This year's committee had a bit of training in a few relevant HR techniques (should have started years ago). NomCom membership needs an urgent reworking, other than that, I think it does what it's asked. Best, Adam

This breakdown in trust and resignation of stewardship has been toxic. There is nothing that can be written in the rules that can cause change towards a stewardship and earning-trust model. It has to be the action of the community itself that begins thinking less of how to get a larger size of the pie and more of how to make the pie better.

Therefore I think that this is the worst of times for a major rethink of the NomCom and other processes that get Directors to the Board. Change may be needed, though what change is needed is a very open discussion. But the thing to focus on right now is the substitution of the NTIA's function, nothing more. If that implies other changes these must be very convincing.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote: I've been involved in NomCom far too many times :-) And each year the community was asked for input on the criteria.

ICANN is a large and complex organization: having experience of complex organizations, budgets, strategic planning, it part of the job. Doesn't mean it has to be a person's only skill, but in a broad aggregate it needs to be present. And smart people will learn, but you don't want too many learning on the job when they are voting on issues that affect millions and $millions. Look at the people NomCom has appointed. There's only one that fits the pure "large corporate board" category.

Selection of NomCom members does need more thought. I often felt a fraud judging people on criteria I myself had little or no experience of.

Adam

On Apr 4, 2014, at 12:31 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

...

Carlton,

I completely agree with you, the criteria given to NomCom have to be thoroughly revised.

Experience on “large corporate boards” has been an indication given to NomCom in the past, but I believe that one of the key words in the ideal Director profile is “in aggregate”.

This means that while ideally a Director has to have an incredible knowledge and experience, this is meant in the sense that the Board, as a whole, needs to have this wealth of knowledge and experience, not necessarily each and every Director. So, it might well be that at certain moments there is not enough large corporate boards experience on the Board, and it will be legitimate to look for reinforcing this aspect, but this does not mean that all candidates that do not have such item in the profile should be discarded. To make an example, if “large corporate boards” is a need, “non-profit boards” is well another one.

So the two big questions are:

- How to cefine the requirements for NomCom

- How to select the NomCom members (i.e. is the current mechanism the best one?)

Cheers,

Roberto

Da: Carlton Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Inviato: mercoledì 2 aprile 2014 02:56 A: Roberto Gaetano Cc: Sivasubramanian M; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Spanish version of lac-discuss; Discussion for At-Large Europe; afri-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Discuss; At-Large Announcements; APRALO; At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Oggetto: Re: [lac-discuss-es] R: [EURO-Discuss] [APAC-Discuss] [At-Large] VOTE RESULTS: 2014 At-Large Board Director (Seat #15) Selection Process

Roberto:

I too believe what you're proposing is not just sensible but strategic and in the overarching At-Large interest.

Maybe its because of my position that on principle, I simply cannot accept that in matters of governance and when part of a distant group and with respect to decision-making, the representative should be obliged to 'take the whip' - meaning follow the instructions - of his/her group. This is my position regardless of the size of the electorate; whether popularly elected or not, I have greats doubts that one can ever be confined & judged as truly reflecting the wishes of the constituency.

Indeed at the onset, a few of us thought the liaison role properly configured may likely have a more sustainable interest for the At-Large than the single voting director. So while we are largely agreed, I have one quibble with your characterisation of the role of the NomCom; that set of criteria utilised for selection of directors.

In your estimation of this new role for the Board, I would hope that space for more guidance is calculated so there is a balance in criteria between persons having experience on 'large corporate boards' than those without. And I say this in context of likely interpretation of the meaning of 'large'. For depending on who defines 'large', a whole set of likely participants from my side of the world will enter the process already disadvantaged. And that does not augur well for participation at that level for those of us at the edge of empire.

Best,

-Carlton

============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:

I have been one of the champions of the ALAC representation to the Board with voting Directors, on par with the other supporting organizations. So I believe that I cannot be suspected of anti-ALAC-ism if I now, years later, argue that to fight for more Directors on the Board is a battle of the past, that has little meaning looking at the evolution of the organizazion and at a full realization of the multi-stakeholder model. The multi-stakeholder model is not a parliamentarian model where the stakeholder will get representation based on their relative "strength". The parliamentarian scheme is OK for an organization in its infancy, where the constitution has to be drafted. In a mature organization, with basic laws and behaviours already defined, the appointment of representatives by constituencies inevitably brings in the Board the petty interests of the different constituencies instead of having a sort of council of the elders that abstracts from the contingent interests looking for the common good. This has been the guideline that was attempted with the GNSO Review, albeit with only partial, although significant, results. It is time to propose a different model for the Board as well, to get rid as much as possible of the system by which we have representative of "parties" that often have conflicting interests. I believe that we should go towards reducing the SO-appointed Directors, and have instead a larger share, possibly a super-majority, appointed by NomCom. The NomCom should also get a precise description of the skill set that is missing for that particular year, so that they can choose the names accordingly. Cheers, Roberto

...

-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Sivasubramanian M Inviato: domenica 30 marzo 2014 18:27 A: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org; lac-discuss-es@atlarge- lists.icann.org; euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; afri-discuss@atlarge- lists.icann.org; At-Large Announcements; APRALO; At-Large Worldwide; na- discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] [APAC-Discuss] [At-Large] VOTE RESULTS: 2014

...

At-Large Board Director (Seat #15) Selection Process

...

Dear Wolfgang,

The original idea of nine Voting Directors was possibly conceived to ensure an independent, user driven organization. NomCom was a good idea, but in the process At-Large lost the seats in the Board, in exchange for shared responsibility in the selection process.

A better representation for At-Large, as originally envisaged, would positively demonstrate that ICANN Governance is emphatically based on the multi- stakeholder model of Governance.

In the recent At-Large elections, we have had an effective incumbent and four other qualified candidates, which goes on to prove that At-Large has matured, has people sufficiently qualified for Board positions. As you have mentioned, we have the GNSO user communities with qualified people, which increases the the number of available qualified candidates even more. In this context, if we revisit the discussions on more Board seats which would reaffirm ICANN's faith in the multi-stakeholder model. Other Stakeholders might welcome such a discussion to improve user participation in the Board, because it would essentially improve Trust in the ICANN process.

More candidates from At-Large to Board positions could be appointed by two different processes:

1) By the existing process whereby the AC selects / elects a candidate and the chosen person is appointed. This introduces an election which could sometimes create differences, though such differences do not exist within this AC at the moment.

2) By a process completely free of the Internal elections, by an internal NomCom. (initial thoughts, there are various ways of designing such a process, there are advantages and disadvantages to be considered)

Thank you.

Sivasubramanian M India

On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:32 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

...

Hi,

I also want to join the many thanks to Sebastian (great job), to Rinalia (great challenge) and Roberto and Tijani (well done). Nothing more to add what Veronica has said so nicely and well structured.

I this context: Don´t forget the History. In the present NTIA transition discussion a lot of "orginal ideas" from 1998 are remembered. One orginal idea was to give the At Large Membership nine voting seats. Article V, Section 4 of the Orginal Bylaws (November 6, 1998) said in para. iv: "Nine (9) At Large Directors, selected pursuant to a process to be established by a majority vote of all the At Large Board members of the Initial Board". http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws/bylaws-06nov98- en.htm# V

We know the history. Five voting directors were elected in 2000 for two years. In November 2001 the At Large Membership Committee, chaired by Carl Bildt, recommended the establishment of an At Large Supporting Organisation (ALSO) with the right to send six voting directors to the board.

http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/at-large/final-report-05nov01.h tm#_toc523422641

In 2002, as part of the general ICANN reform process the ideas of an At Large elections and the establishment of an ALSO with six regional councils were abolished and were substituted by an "At Large Advisory Committee" (ALAC) with five RALOs, a certification process for ALSs and the establishment of a NomCon which now sends eight directors to the board. The NomCom got five voting At Large Members. The chair of ALAC was invited to serve as a non-votong liaison in the Board (similar to the chair of the GAC).

In the preparation for ATLAS I in Mexico in 2008 we were calling for two voting ALAC Board members. We got one. Now ATLAS II is at the horizon. We need a strong message from ATLAS II that the multistakeholder model - which is now under tough discussion and has to face its "moment of truth" - will work only, if you have a strong civil society role in policy development and decision making.

Here we have to invest more how to do this and to go out of our silos both within the broader CS community (in particular with NCUC and NPOC) as well as in cross constituency communication, coordination and collaboration with private sector, technical community and governments. A big challenge.

Wolfgang

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Veronica Cretu Gesendet: Sa 29.03.2014 15:55 An: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org; lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org; euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; afri-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org; apac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] [At-Large] VOTE RESULTS: 2014 At-Large Board Director (Seat #15) Selection Process

Dear colleagues, dear Olivier - thanks for this message and to echo and build up on it, I would also like to:

- Thank *Sebastian* for the work done in his capacity as a member of the Board and wish him success in the upcoming new roles and initiatives. We all continue building on our previous experiences, so this process should be a continuous exercise and include those who can learn from us - so, I am sure Sebastian will find good ways to share the wealth of expertise gained in his role as a Board member and continue serve the community in the best possible ways.

- Congratulate *Rinalia* for being elected to the Board and wish her much luck in this interesting, yet, challenging new role. These are important times for ICANN which will require several key competences, and awareness of geo-political realities in different parts of the world. I trust Rinalia will be able to deliver on the expectations on the community-at-large.

- Thank *Roberto* for the wonderful leadership of the BCEC - it has been for me, personally, a great experience. Like in any experience there are always things to learn from and improve based on the input from members.

On this note, hope everyone attending ICANN 49 managed to return home safe & sound, otherwise, wishing you safe travels back home!

With very best, Veronica

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com

...

wrote:

...

Dear All,

I wanted to extend my congratulations to Rinalia Abdul Rahim in what was a very balanced election that required many rounds to differentiate the candidates.

Rinalia has been selected by our community to sit on the Board at a moment that is not only crucial for At-Large but also crucial for ICANN as a whole. She will take her seat at the 2014 ICANN Annual General Meeting - the last meeting of the year - which will take place in Los Angeles.

Thanks to all of the candidates who have run for the position. It is through a wide candidate list that we can assure a wider choice of options for the future of our community.

Thanks to Roberto Gaetano and the Board Candidate Evaluation Committee. Their work has been crucial in providing a first class short-list of candidates.

Thanks to Tijani Ben Jemaa and the Board Member Selection Process Committee for their stewardship of a process that has been challenging due to the multiple instances of Ties.

The work of these Committees is not over. They will analyse lessons learnt and work together to provide the ALAC with an updated set of recommendations to improve the selection process next time around.

Finally, I would like to remind you that until the 2014 ICANN AGM, the Board Member selected by At-Large is Sébastien Bachollet and would like to reaffirm the full support of our community in the challenging months ahead of us. We are well aware that he is not on the Board to "represent us" but as a candidate from our community selected to the Board by our community, he has proven himself to share his experience of Internet End Users with his Board Colleagues and we are grateful of his continued involvement in all matters of ICANN.

Kindest regards,

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

On 26/03/2014 15:06, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote:

...

Dear All,

Tijani Ben Jemaa, Chair of the Board Member Selection Process Committee (BMSPC) 2014, has asked that an announcement on the final vote results of the Board Director (Seat #15) selected by the ALAC/At-Large for 2015-2017 (to take their seat at the 2014 AGM) be published.

This is to inform you that the 2014 At-Large Board Director (Seat #15) Selection Process was completed on 25-March-2014.

Below is the list of candidates (listed in alphabetical order of the family name) who ran for the position:

* Rinalia Abdul Rahim * Sébastien Bachollet * Alan Greenberg * Evan Leibovitch * Jean-Jacques Subrenat

After the FIRST ROUND VOTE and the SECOND ROUND's first vote, tie breaking vote, and second (final) vote, the candidate who is selected as the Board Director (Seat #15) by ALAC/At-Large for 2015-2017 is: Rinalia Abdul Rahim.

You may review the results, as well as the detailed information about the selection procedure, under: https://community.icann.org/x/WinRAg.

Regards,

Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org% 3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org <mailto:3cmailto%3Astaff@atlarge.icann.org> > staff@atlarge.icann.org

<applewebdata://68497759-1B04-4F9B-84B7- B9445B8F305F/Regards,%20Heidi%

20Ullrich,%20Silvia%20Vivanco,%20Matt%20Ashtiani,%20Ariel%20Liang,%20G

...

isella%20Gruber,%

...

20Nathalie%20Peregrine%20and%20Julia%20Charvolen%20ICANN%20Policy %20St

...

aff%20in%20support%20of%20ALACmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org <mailto:aff%2520in%2520support%2520of%2520ALACmailto%3Astaff@atlarge.icann.o rg>

...

...

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <

http://atlarge.icann.org/>

...

_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>

-- *Veronica Cretu *

*President, Open Government Institute**Republic of Moldova - http://opengov.si.md/ <http://opengov.si.md/>*

*Member of the Steering Committee, * *Open Government Partnership (OGP);* * http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/steering-committee/role- and-cu rrent-membership < http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/steering-committee/role- and-cu rrent-membership

...

*

*Member of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group* *To the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)*

*http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/1549 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/>*

*Member of the Nominating Committee of ICANN* *(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbering)*

*http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/2014/members <http://www.icann.org<; http://www.icann.org/> >*

*Email: veronicacretu@gmail.com <veronicacretu@gmail.com> and/or veronica@cretu.md <veronica@cretu.md>Skype: veronicacretu Phone: 373 067435000* _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>

_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

-- Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India +91 99524 03099 <tel:%2B91%2099524%2003099> _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es

http://www.lacralo.org

_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es

http://www.lacralo.org

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .