Thanks Ariel; please add me to the list.

Best

Marie

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 3:19 PM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org
Subject: [council] REMINDER: NomComRIWG: Outreach questions

Dear all,

This is a reminder for call for volunteers for the small team to draft a Council’s response to the NomCom Review Implementation WG. If you are interested in volunteering, please respond on list by COB Friday, 20 December. Thanks Tom and Carlton for volunteering!

Best Regards,

Ariel

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Drazek, Keith via council" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Reply-To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com>
Date: Monday, December 16, 2019 at 8:21 AM
To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: [council] FW: NomComRIWG: Outreach questions

Hi all,

Please see the email below from the NomCom Review Implementation Working Group. They have posed a set of questions to the GNSO Council, with a response deadline of January 31. I suggest we form a small team to coordinate the Council’s answers and reply. If anyone would like to volunteer, please let me know.

Best,

Keith

From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 8:13 AM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; pam.little@alibaba-inc.com; rafik.dammak@gmail.com
Cc: Tom Barrett <tbarrett@encirca.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com>; Zahid Jamil-IG <internet@jamilandjamil.com>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-secs@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NomComRIWG: Outreach questions

Dear Keith, Dear Pam, Dear Rafik,

As the leaders of the NomCom Review Implementation Working Group (NomComRIWG), we are contacting you following the ICANN Board’s acceptance of our Detailed Implementation Plan [icann.org]. The NomComRIWG has been directed to commence implementation of the twenty-seven (27) recommendations, and we are seeking the GNSO Council’s responses to a number of questions via the following google form: https://forms.gle/vrs95jrp9akK5sSRA [forms.gle] by 31 January 2020. Feel free to also seek input from the GNSO Council’s supporting staff if you believe this might add value to the implementation. If we have not received the GNSO Council’s response or a request for an extension by the deadline, we will proceed with the implementation without your input.

If you prefer, feel free to respond separately to individual questions that you are able to answer, rather than wait until you are able to answer all of the questions at once.

Please note this is the first round of several outreaches, we will be continuously outreaching to you throughout the implementation phase (over the next twenty-four to thirty-six months) due to the nature of this review. In particular, many members of the NomComRIWG will attend ICANN67 and plan to hold an update session for the entire community. If your group has time on your internal agenda and would like to meet with us for a short in-person update, do not hesitate to reach out to us via mssi-secretariat@icann.org and we will happily coordinate. Finally, if you have any questions or concerns, either about the questions, or about any other aspect of the NomCom Review implementation, please, do not hesitate to reach out to us.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Tom Barrett, Chair NomComRIWG

Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG

Zahid Jamal, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG

NomComRIWG wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/aBpIBg

Detailed Implementation Plan: PDF [icann.org]

Rec. 14: Formalize communication between the NomCom and the Board, SOs/ACs, and the PTI Board to understand needed competencies and experience.

Is there additional information that could be shared between the NomCom and the GNSO so that the NomCom can better target its selection to the needs of the GNSO Council?

Rec. 16: Implement and codify a system for providing feedback to the NomCom regarding the contributions and participation of members up for re-appointment by the NomCom.

What information do you currently share with the NomCom about its NomCom appointees, and what is the timing of these communications?

In your opinion, what additional information should be shared between you and the NomCom?

Rec. 21: The NomCom should use a standardized tool to evaluate and prioritize candidates, based on desired competencies and experience as determined annually. This tool will not replace qualitative assessments of candidates.

In your opinion, what tools, assessments and skills analysis should be used by the NomCom to make the best possible selection.

Rec. 22: The NomCom should provide consistent interview questions and an interviewer evaluation form for the candidates interviewed during the deep-dive phase and the final face-to-face interviews.

In your opinion, which questions should be part of the "interview question library" and which would then be used by every NomCom?

Rec. 25: Improve NomCom selection decisions by assessing the performance and needs of all bodies receiving NomCom appointees.

Is the GNSO Council performing any self-assessments, or third-party assessments?

If yes, are there any identified skills needed for future NomCom appointees to your organization?

If applicable, how do you communicate this to the NomCom?

What performance assessment, if any, do you think is feasible by the GNSO Council to improve future NomCom selection decisions.