Jordan, Jay, all,
- the updated Guidelines for the Board elections suggest that candidate statements would normally be heard at the first meeting in a calendar year - in your explanation you've said that the process for this year's election is the same as for past years. Should the guidelines be brought into consistency with practice? To be clear, the guidelines leave the timeframe to the Council to decide so there's no problem with the current decision, it just seems like there is an inconsistency.
The Guideline says that ³The Nominations Manager will ask the candidate(s) to provide and present a Candidate Statement at the FIRST ICANN meeting FOLLOWING the closure of the nominations period². It does not say that ³normally it is the first meeting². It says ³most likely the first meeting in a calendar year² in brackets. I think in this case the most important part is outside the brackets, which says that it is the first meeting AFTER the closure of the nominations period whenever it is. I am chairing the Guidelines Review Committee (the one that reviews the guidelines and charters) but I cannot explain what we were thinking when we put the text in the brackets :-) I remember we discussed that we should do it as early as possible to allow any newcomer enough time to learn about the operations of the Board (as suggested by Mike during the Q&A when he was re-appointed for the Board by the ccNSO two years ago).
- what process is there for consultation with ccNSO members on these aspects of the guidelines? From your reply I understand that the Council adopted new guidelines from 1 September that replaced a document from 2008. I've had a quick look through the list and through agendas for ccNSO meetings for 2016, but haven't found anything about the topic. I am sure I will just have missed it.
The procedure is the following: 1) a working group develops guidelines (any ccTLD is welcome to participate in this work) and presents them to the ccNSO Council. According to the ICANN Bylaws the ccNSO Council adopts the documents. Currently we have Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) that reviews and updates the current set of charters and guidelines. The GRC provided and provides updates at each ccNSO meeting and gives information on guidelines already reviewed and guidelines that still need to be updated/developed. We have done this at the previous meetings and will do so again in Hyderabad. As the GRC stresses every time the work is published online at https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/Guidelines+Review+Committee. Further, to ensure the Board members selection is aligned with the 27 May Bylaws we had to update the guideline in conjunction with developing the EC Administration Committee appointment and RZERC member selection. Therefore, we will find only one (and not the latest) draft of the Board guideline at https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/Board+Selection. 2) The ccNSO Council reviews and adopts the guidelines. Information about the documents to be reviewed is also published online. The 1 September meeting info is available here: https://community.icann.org/display/ccNSOCWS/1+September+@11%3A00+UTC . I am also sure that each individual Councillor would gladly answer any question you might have. 3) When the documents are adopted they are published and within 7 days the ccNSO members can express their disagreement. That being said, what I take away from this conversation is that we as the ccNSO Council need to publish our agenda in advance of the meeting, and include to the extent available the documents to be discussed at the meeting, such as the Guidelines.
- is there any route to discuss or consider these issues (the timing ones and the point Jay has written more about) in between now and the next planned review of the guidelines in 2019, or should we aim to have a contribution then?
We do not have to wait until 2019 to discuss any of the issues. But we need to be very aware that changing the Guideline and adjusting it to our needs is very different to changing Article IX (or Article 10 under the 27 May 2016 Bylaws). The point Jay has raised goes back to a very fundamental choice that, as far as I understand, was made at the time the ccNSO was created: should ccNSO appointed Councillors or Board members be from or need to be directly associated with a ccTLD or are they elected in their personal capacity. At the time and to date the choice is that they are (s)elected in their personal capacity. The Bylaws are very clear about the Councillors: Article IX section 4: Any ccNSO member may nominate an individual to serve as a ccNSO Council member representing the ccNSO member's Geographic Region. Nominations must be seconded by another ccNSO member from the same Geographic Region. With respect to the Board Selection/nomination the Bylaws are silent. In 2007/2008 the guideline documented that the principle applicable to Council elections is also applicable to Board Selection/nominations. I also would like to note that nomination and secondment is only a first step in the process. In order to be (s)elected a candidate needs the (silent) support from the community. That being said I think the first opportunity to discuss this issue and the related issues around the ccNSO Council will be Hyderabad: one of the agenda items in the context of the ongoing Accountability discussions is the accountability of the ccNSO (Council).
My thought was -- and suggestion remains -- that it would be helpful to have the nominations still open while that happened, perhaps closing early in the f2f meeting, because then people can understand what the people nominated so far have to offer, make decisions and so on.
Although I appreciate your reasoning, I think this would be confusing for both the community and the candidates: nominations is only one part of the process. When nominations period closes the nominees are asked to accept their nominations. I think we should allow at least a week for that. One day or slightly more might be unfair, for example, to those who are travelling to the meeting. Plus people need some time to arrange their trips to the coming f2f meeting in case they are nominated and want to address the community. In addition, candidates who are nominated well before a f2f meeting (as is currently the case) can prepare and be interviewed by the community. If we leave the nomination period open during or even after the meeting I wonder when the community would have an opportunity to interview the new candidates. But, of course, we can discuss various options and improve processes if they are considered to be unfair. Kind regards, ]{atrina From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: Thursday 29 September 2016 00:28 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>, ccNSO Members <ccnso-members@icann.org>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board Thanks Katrina for this great reply, and thanks to you and all the other Council members for the work you are doing. I've got a couple of questions arising from this: - the updated Guidelines for the Board elections suggest that candidate statements would normally be heard at the first meeting in a calendar year - in your explanation you've said that the process for this year's election is the same as for past years. Should the guidelines be brought into consistency with practice? To be clear, the guidelines leave the timeframe to the Council to decide so there's no problem with the current decision, it just seems like there is an inconsistency. - what process is there for consultation with ccNSO members on these aspects of the guidelines? From your reply I understand that the Council adopted new guidelines from 1 September that replaced a document from 2008. I've had a quick look through the list and through agendas for ccNSO meetings for 2016, but haven't found anything about the topic. I am sure I will just have missed it. - is there any route to discuss or consider these issues (the timing ones and the point Jay has written more about) in between now and the next planned review of the guidelines in 2019, or should we aim to have a contribution then? I really appreciate you setting out the logic of the timetable. It is important to select early enough that we have people ready to participate in the Board's work from when this is expected. From your reply, I understand that the idea is - get the nominations done, and then use the face - to - face meeting time for people to hear the candidates and what they stand for. My thought was -- and suggestion remains -- that it would be helpful to have the nominations still open while that happened, perhaps closing early in the f2f meeting, because then people can understand what the people nominated so far have to offer, make decisions and so on. Regardless of where the decision lands, thank you for taking the time to explain your position. It is a good signal about openness and accountability that people can a) raise these questions, and b) have them comprehensively answered. all best Jordan On 29 September 2016 at 01:45, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Jordan, Mathieu, All,
First of all, thank you for expressing your concerns around this topic.
As Joke indicated in her email the ccNSO Council has discussed and approved the timeline for the Board (and Council) nominations /selection at its 1 September meeting and also adopted a new Board Nomination Guideline (https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-nominations-icann-board-guidelin... -01sep16-en.pdf), which replaced the Board selection guideline from 2008 (https://ccnso.icann.org/about/guidelines-board-selection-procedure-08may08-e... .pdf)
First of all, although formally the current term of Board seat 11 ends at the AGM in 2017, the ccNSO Council worked under the premise that the (new) Board member will be involved in ICANN Board as of May of the year they take their seat. In this cycle it means that the ccNSO should have selected/nominated its Board member by the end of April 2017 at the latest.
Further, it has become a standard practice (and is now included in the new Guideline on Board nominations) that the community has an opportunity to interact with candidates during our face-to-face meetings. In this case that would mean either at the Hyderabad meeting (November 2016) or Copenhagen meeting (March 2017). In both cases we need to allow for 6 weeks of nominations and additionally take into account the possibility of an election and run-off election by the members after the face-to face meeting.
Taking these factors into account, and to avoid a rushed nomination and election process, the ccNSO Council decided to adopt the current timeline.
In addition, I would like to point out that previous Board selection processes were organized in a similar time cycle and the call for nominations was sent out at the same time for the same reasons. Should be no surprises here.
Regarding the point with respect to Board and Council candidates/members and their relationship with a ccTLD manager, I appreciate that point. However, I must note that this is not a simple issue and there are several opposite views on this.
Neither the Bylaws, nor our internal procedures say that our representatives must work for a ccTLD. In case of the Board and Council elections an individual needs to be nominated and seconded by a ccTLD manager.
That being said, what if the person leaves the ccTLD and starts working for another ccTLD, is that ok? If the person leaves the ccTLD and does not start working for another ccTLD, should we run a new round of election or ask the ccTLD to appoint a successor (which would be the case if we elected the person as an employee of the particular ccTLD)? What if the person leaves and starts working for, e.g., a gTLD?
I think this is something we should consider not only in the context of Councillors or Board members but also in the context of our representatives on various working groups. So far we have dealt with such situations on a case by case basis and I believe we have always found a solution that is the best for our community.
Personally I support the view that we elect people on the basis of their personal qualities and their willingness to serve the ccTLD community (provided there are no conflicts of interest that might cast doubts on person¹s actions).
But I understand there are opposite views and welcome a discussion on these important issues.
Answering Mathieu¹s question whether the ccNSO Council has discussed elections and the lack of volunteers yes, we have. But I would re-phrase Mathieu¹s concern slightly. I do not think it would be entirely correct to say that the absence of choice for members is a strong warning signal. The choice is not something that can and should be administratively or artificially imposed by somebody. It is up to the members to provide this choice. Why members do not step forward certainly is a strong warning signal. Lack of volunteers and volunteers fatigue is a constant concern. We have used to the extent of abused¹ the same people over and over again. I can understand why they do not volunteer for more work very well. I can only wholeheartedly thank everybody who contribute to the work of the ccNSO and hope that other members (and non-members) will be inspired by all those wonderful people who do a lot of heavy lifting on behalf of the ccTLD community!
Thank you!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
From: <owner-ccnso-members@icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date: Wednesday 28 September 2016 09:54 To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Cc: <ccnso-members@icann.org>, <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board
Dear Colleagues,
I agree with Jordan that a discussion on this topic prior to the election / nomination would be required.
In addition to the point he raises, I would add the issue of choice for members. If I¹m not mistaken, the last few Board seat elections took place without even a vote, due to a lack of candidates. We are fortunate to have two highly skilled and committed Board representatives today, but isn¹t the absence of choice for members a strong warning signal ?
Maybe it could shared with this list whether it has already been discussed within the Council ?
Best regards, Mathieu
De : owner-ccnso-members@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org] De la part de Jordan Carter Envoyé : mercredi 28 septembre 2016 02:43 À : Joke Braeken Cc : ccnso-members@icann.org; ccnso-council@icann.org Objet : Re: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board
Hi Joke, Council, fellow ccNSO members:
Why the rush, is my short question?
The board seat does not come up until 2017¹s AGM (more than a year away), and we have a meeting in Hyderabad coming up early November, a couple of weeks after the proposed close of nominations.
It surely would make sense to let people discuss and talk with each other about the seat at the meeting, given the long time available.
More significantly, we here at .nz think there needs to be a discussion about Board and Council candidates / members and their relationship with a ccTLD manager.
There are a couple of examples in both places, Board and Council, of people leaving a ccTLD and remaining in place.
I haven¹t formed a view about whether that¹s a good thing or not, but do think it would be reasonable for us to talk through, and before we have to deal with another round of ccNSO elections either to Council or Board.
I am strongly opposed to a sudden nomination process like this when we have plenty of time to wait, discuss it at Hyderabad, agree some guidelines and then enter into an election closer to the time.
What do others think?
cheers,
On 28 September 2016 at 00:08, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> wrote:
Dear ccNSO members,
Chris Disspain¹s term on the ICANN Board Seat 11 will expire at the ICANN Annual General Meeting 2016. The ccNSO is now opening a call for nominations to fill ICANN Board seat number 11. Below you will find all details related to the procedure for nominations and for seconding nominations.
Nominations can be made as of Tuesday 27 September 2016, 00.00 UTC until Tuesday 18 October 2016, 23.59 UTC.
Nominations can only be submitted to ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org> and will require verification. Templates for nominating and seconding nominations are provided below, and published here: https://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27sep16-en.htm
The names of the nominees will be made public at http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations <http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations> Consult https://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27sep16-en.htm for details on the nomination process and the procedures/templates that apply.
Kind regards,
Joke Braeken
Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board Date: 27 September 2016
The term of the ICANN Board seat number 11 expires at the ICANN AGM 2016 and a nomination process therefore needs to be launched. Should there be more than one candidate nominated for seat number 11, an election will be held.
Bylaw Article IX section 3.9 <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#IX> states: "The ccNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 11 and 12 on the Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such selection must have affirmative votes of a majority of all the members of the ccNSO Council then in office. Notification of the ccNSO Council's selections shall be given by the ccNSO Council Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-8.4> and 12(1) <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-12.1> ." The 27 May 2016 Bylaws are not effective.
The ccNSO Council and the ccNSO members have decided that before making the nomination of Directors, the ccNSO members shall be entitled to nominate and vote for candidates they wish the Council to nominate to the ICANN Board.
Section 2(3) of Article VI of the Bylaws states "In carrying out their responsibilities to fill Seats 9 through 14, the Supporting Organizations shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-3> of this Article. At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region."
Pursuant to this Bylaw, the candidate that receives the highest number of votes from ccNSO members will be nominated by the Council to the ICANN Board.
Each member can nominate one candidate for seat 11 on the ICANN Board and each member can second one candidate. In order to nominate or second a candidate, a member must be a member of the ccNSO by 27 September 2016. Nominations can be made from 27 September 2016, 00.00 UTC until Tuesday 18 October 2016, 23.59 UTC.
Nominations should be sent by e-mail to the Election Manager at the following e-mail address: ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org>
PLEASE NOTE: If you send a Nomination or Second, you will receive an email from ICANN asking you to confirm that you have sent an email to ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org. For your Nomination or Second to be valid, responding to the email requesting confirmation is obligatory.
Archives to be found at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations <http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations>
Please use this template for nominations:
Template for Nomination 1a. Full name of the candidate being nominated: 1b. E-mail address of the candidate being nominated: 1c. Country of which the candidate is a citizen: 2a. Full name of the nominator: 2b. E-mail address of the nominator:
All nominations must be seconded by another ccNSO member. Please use this template for seconding nominations:
Template for Seconding a Nomination 1 Full name of nominator whose candidate is being seconded: 2a. Full name of the candidate being seconded: 2b. E-mail address of the candidate being seconded: 3a. Full name of the seconder: 3c. E-mail address of the seconder:
Accepting Nominations The Election Manager will confirm the nomination, by sending an e-mail to the candidate requesting their acceptance. The candidate will then have a chance to submit their CV and/or a mission statement.
Nominations will be archived at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations <http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations>
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO <https://twitter.com/ccNSO>
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/>
http://ccnso.icann.org <http://ccnso.icann.org>
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz <http://www.InternetNZ.nz>
A better world through a better Internet
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz <http://www.InternetNZ.nz> A better world through a better Internet