Thanks Maureen, I have put this under AOB for today's CPWG<https://community.icann.org/x/4pGGBg>. ________________________________ From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 6:59 PM To: CPWG Subject: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] Fwd: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps Hi everyone Something else for us to work on before 10 June. Perhaps we could get a small subgroup to work on the 7 questions the Review Team recommends we concentrate on and bring their report back to the CPWG for discussion. Any volunteers? M ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org<mailto:jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org>> Date: Tue, 14 May 2019, 4:39 AM Subject: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Cc: Tom Barrett <tbarrett@encirca.com<mailto:tbarrett@encirca.com>>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, Zahid Jamil-IG (internet@jamilandjamil.com<mailto:internet@jamilandjamil.com>) <internet@jamilandjamil.com<mailto:internet@jamilandjamil.com>>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> Dear Maureen, We are contacting you in the capacity of Chair and Vice-Chairs of the NomCom Review Implementation Working Group (NomComRIWG). Following the ICANN Board’s acceptance [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> of the Final Report [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> and the Feasibility Assessment and Initial Implementation Plan [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>, we have been tasked to oversee the implementation of the twenty-seven (27) recommendations issued by the independent examiner. Before implementation can begin, the Board has asked us to draft a Detailed Implementation Plan, due to be submitted to the Board’s Organizational Effectiveness Committee no later than 14 September 2019. While the NomComRIWG has the Board-mandated responsibility to plan the implementation of the twenty-seven recommendations, we would welcome any and all feedback either as a single document from the ALAC or from individual members of the ALAC. All feedback will inform our drafting of the Detailed Implementation Plan. We understand that you or the ALAC may not have the time to respond to all 27 recommendations, so we have identified seven where your input would be most helpful. Please, limit your response to the process you suggest we follow for each implementation rather than advocating for any specific outcome of the recommendation. We kindly ask you to provide us with your feedback no later than 10 June 2019. If you cannot respond by that time, but would like to provide input, please, let us know at your earliest convenience by when we can expect your feedback. If you have any questions or concerns, either about the list of questions, or about any other aspect of the NomCom Review implementation, please, do not hesitate to reach out to us or any of ICANN’s support staff at any time. Many thanks and best wishes, Tom Barrett, Chair NomComRIWG Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG Zahid Jamal, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG Cc: ALAC, ASO AC, ccNSO Council, GAC, GNSO Council, RSSAC, SSAC, NCSG, RrSG, RySG, BC, IPC, ISPCP, NCUC, NPOC, AFRALO, APRALO, EURALO, LACRALO, NARALO. 1. Recommendation 10: Representation on the NomCom should be re-balanced immediately and then be reviewed every five years. * What process, based on which principles, would you suggest for the implementation of this recommendation to rebalance the NomCom? And, what criteria should the overall allocation of all NomCom seats among the SO/ACs be based on? 1. Recommendation 14: Formalize communication between the NomCom and the Board, SOs/ACs, and the PTI Board in order to understand needed competencies and experience. * What process would you suggest to formalize the communication of the needed competencies and experiences of NomCom appointees to your SO/AC? 1. Recommendation 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 (i.e. for the Board, PTI, GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO) * What process would you suggest to improve feedback to the NomCom regarding the contribution and participation of NomCom-appointees members that wish to apply for re-appointment by the NomCom? 1. Recommendation 24: An empowered body of current and former NomCom members should be formed to ensure greater continuity across NomComs, and in particular, to recommend and assist in implementing improvements to NomCom operations. * What process do you suggest should be put in place to help ensure cross-community consensus on developing the Charter and formation of this body? The Charter would address issues such as membership, term-limits, number and allocation of seats. 1. Recommendation 25: Improve NomCom selection decisions by assessing the performance and needs of all bodies receiving NomCom appointees. * What process would you suggest for your organization to inform and improve future NomCom appointments? 1. Recommendation 27: Provide clarity on desire for and definition of “independent directors”. Upon clarification of desire and definition, determine the number of specific seats for “independent directors”. • What are your suggestions regarding the process of implementing of this recommendation?