On 20 nov 2007, at 16.34, Alan Greenberg wrote:

I support all of Chucks comments, although one conditionally.

CG: I suggest that each year we should identify specific skills from the
above list that are of highest priority for us for the timeframe
involved.

Makes sense. I have added some words to this effect.

as for this year, which skill are most critical in this year's selection.

I have highlighted International legal knowledge, intergovernmental experience and economics/market analysis

Although I support highlighting the skills that may be most needed, I think the overall statement is too highly weighted on "skills". Less well defined qualities such as perspective may be of value, and we should give the NomCom leeway in selecting people who can help the GNSO. As currently stated, having one of the listed of highlighted skills is mandatory for selection.

I had already inserted a section on the role of the nomcom appointee. I have added some words on these intangible qualities.

{Appointees should be people who can help the GNSO council to perform its duties; sometimes this may involve filling gaps in the skill set, at other times it may involve addressing a diversity or other demographic balance or may involve bringing a necessary perspective into the council that is not already present. Generally an appointee needs to fulfill several of these needs at the same time.}

Lastly, I would adjust the "at least 20 hours per month" to reflect 3 ICANN meetings and possible other face-to-face meetings. On a personal note, never having completed my speed-reading course, 20 hours is way low at times when we are hit with large documents to review.

done.

{Depending on work load, for example during the weeks before the 3 face to face meeting, this can sometimes escalate to as much as 20 hours per week or more. The commitment for the 3 face to face meetings generally run about 7 days with council members having sometimes extensive responsibilities on most days. For those involved in Task forces or Working Groups, there may occasionally be additional face to face interim meetings}

Alan

At 20/11/2007 10:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> {Role of the Nomcom Appointee.
>
> As discussed above the majority of the councillors are
> appointed by the constituencies and represent those
> constituencies in the council. Nomcom appointees, on the
> other hand, are not the representatives of any specific
> group, though they may choose to represent the interests of
> groups that are not currently represented in council. Most
> importantly nomcom appointees should be people chosen from
> outside ICANN who bring a fresh perspective into the council
> and who accept the responsibility to do their best to support
> ICANN in its mission and core values.}

CG: What is meant by "outside ICANN"? I think we should be more
specific here so that we do not eliminate candidates who have been
active in ICANN, a quality that seems desirable. I am not suggesting
that candidates must have been active in ICANN, but I am suggesting that
candidates who have been active not be eliminated.

I guess it should be more outside the GNSO. Though I do think that one

of the jobs of Nomcom is to bring in 'outsiders'.

I have toned down the sentence to say:

{Most importantly Nomcom appointees should be people chosen, often from outside the GNSO constituencies and sometime from outside ICANN, who bring a fresh perspective into the council and who accept the responsibility to do their best to support ICANN in its mission and core values.}

>
> Additional GNSO criteria:
>
> During the Nom Com meeting with GNSO Council at the ICANN
> meeting in Lisbon, the Council provided the following outline
> of qualities the NomCom should consider in GNSO candidates:
>
> Baseline Criteria for anyone selected as a nomcom appointee:
> {* Demonstrated experience working effectively in
> collaborative environments involving diverse interests.}
> * ability to chair a multi-stakeholder group to reach consensus

CG: Although this is a desirable quality, I am not convinced that every
Councilor must have chair qualities. It could be very useful to the
Council to have certain areas of expertise (e.g., IDNs,
Intergovernmental Knowledge) even if the person may not have chair
qualities.

I have toned this down to say:

Ability to chair {or otherwise assist} a multi-stakeholder group in reaching consensus

Personally, I think this is important especially as we move to the WG model and as council members start sharing stewardship responsibility for these WGs.

>
> {Variable Criteria that are useful to the GNSO:

...

> - statistics and survey analysis
> - project management and document control processes

CG: I suggest that each year we should identify specific skills from the
above list that are of highest priority for us for the timeframe
involved.

>
> {Additionally consideration may be given to Nomcom appointees
> who can help with the geographical or gender balance on the
> council as needed.}

CG: I would suggest that we qualify this to say something like the
following: "Additionally consideration may be given to Nomcom appointees
who can help with the geographical or gender balance on the council as
needed, as long as other needed skill sets are also demonstrated. (In
other words, a condidate should not be nominated solely based on
geographical or gener balance of the Council.)"

I have inserted the following:

{Additionally consideration may be given to Nomcom appointees who can help with the geographical or gender balance on the council as needed, as long as other necessary attributes and skills are also present.}