Dear colleagues, please be so kind to find my proposed response below to questions that we have received about the NomCom Review. My answers are in blue. Please let me know as soon as possible if you propose any amendments to the text, as the deadline for answer is 10 June. On 14/05/2019 16:51, Jean-Baptiste Deroulez wrote:
Dear Olivier,
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 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-14-en#2.f>of the Final Report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.pdf>and the Feasibility Assessment and Initial Implementation Plan <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom2-ipt-review-faiip-14dec18...>, 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 EURALO or from individual members of the EURALO. All feedback will inform our drafting of the Detailed Implementation Plan. We understand that you or the EURALO 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?
This really depends on the actual "balancing". The recommendation suggests the creation of a working group that would be tasked with undertaking an assessment and ultimately making recommendations for the actual re-balancing. The IPT suggests (2) rebalancing could be rotational - the difference in balancing year on year will make this very complicated as the group will not include the same balance of stakeholders and this is likely to affect continuity. IPT suggestion (3) mentions the growth and expansion of SO/ACs - we believe that one has to be careful that gaming the system will not be used to multiply constituencies thus bringing more weight to the NomCom from a particular group of constituencies. At this moment in time, short of supporting a working group to take a deeper look at the issue and to make recommendations, we can only support the process that is currently suggested.
*
2. *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 communicationof the needed competencies and experiences of NomCom appointees to your SO/AC?
This issue is not solely caused by lack of formalised communication. The Nominating Committee meets with SOs and ACs asking what skills are currently needed in their communities. That said, this could well be akin to ask an end user what size of pipe they'd like installed inside their house: they would have no idea. A questionnaire asking the right questions, addressing specific topics, could provide much more insights as to skill gaps in SOs, ACs and the ICANN Board than an open question "what type of profile do you need?"
*
3. *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 forre-appointment by the NomCom?
In the At-Large Community, the RALOs make recommendations for appointing people and the ALAC makes the appointment. Both need to be aware of a returning member's performance. Establishing member performance is the first challenge. This should be composed of two parts: 1. a member's attendance 2. a 360 evaluation from colleagues - with compounded scores from all NomCom participants so as to avoid identification of the sources of the evaluation. Communication between the ALAC Chair plus RALO Chairs and NomCom Chair would be an ideal channel for the feedback. It is then down to each appointing organisation to devise its own internal processes to make use of the information.
*
4. *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.
Response A: This "empowered body" should be a cross community group composed of members of the community appointed by their respective component organisation, in the same manner as NomCom participants. The function of this group should be to focus purely on procedural matters and should not influence NomCom selections. Its primary function should be to make recommendations for ICANN component organisations to act on. It should also receive instructions from component organisations to implement recommendations. In no way should it both recommend and implement without the express agreement from NomCom component organisations. or Response B: there is no need for such a group - as periodic NomCom Reviews will perform the same task.
*
5. *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?
Prior to searching for candidates, a questionnaire asking the right questions, addressing specific topics, could provide much more insights as to skill gaps in SOs, ACs and the ICANN Board than an open question "what type of profile do you need?" The SO/AC should also provide candid feedback to the NomCom about a candidate's past performance. This, again, could also be done via a questionnaire to the Chair of the body that the selectee has been appointed to. Both questionnaires could be linked so as to find out of the original skills gap was competently fulfilled.
*
6. *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?
The NomCom selected directors can be part of the ICANN community, all NomCom selected directors should be, as much as possible, unrelated to the Domain Name industry. They should be completely unconflicted for all decisions of the ICANN Board and should not derive a direct income from the domain name business. Declaring a conflict of interest is not enough here. --- end --- Please review and propose amendments as soon as possible, as these are really my basic, draft answers that I have responded to in the best of my ability to understand our community. If I am wrong on specific points, then please tell me. Many thanks, Olivier