In respect of the subject, the question to settle is the modality for rebalancing if we deem that of great concern. I offer these few discussion notes. The byelaws say the NomCom must be independently reviewed at least once every 5 years. The last independent review was 2018. In that review, the independent panel of 3 with impeccable credentials was selected; Drs. Brown/Rafert/Engle. The panel set out to explore three themes: 1. Whether the NomCom still has a purpose in ICANN? 2. Whether the NomCom was effective in fulfilling its purpose and, what to do if not so? 3. How accountable to the community is the NomCom in making effective selections? To gain further insight in NomCom effectiveness, the panel did a deep dive to discern the effectiveness of their appointments from the 2011 cycle but without individual performance assessment of the appointed individuals. They also studied the composition and size of the NomCom. Recall the NomCom's role. NomCom delegates act on behalf of the *interests of the global Internet* *community* to select in cycles for appointment 8 of 16 voting members of the ICANN Board, 5 of 15 voting members of the ALAC, 3 of 18 ccNSO Council members, 3 of 21 members of GNSO Council, one non-voting and 2 of 5 PTI board members. The Independent Review report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.p...> of 2018 essentially said the NomCom was working ok but is challenged to extract the competencies needed for each group and to find and select the candidate with best fit for each post from the pool of applicants. Currently, the NomCom seeks to renew itself every year and solicit from the Board, SOs and ACs the skills and competencies they need for each cycle. Notwithstanding, the review panel said a lack of institutional knowledge in the NomCom plus absence of codified best practices actually harmed the objective. And the NomCom polices intended to insulate it from adverse influence - especially from the Board - and capture actually instigated the weaknesses they identified. Go figure! Of the 27 recommendations <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.p...> made, 6 were considered critical for the changes they were advising. Of these, 5 required byelaw changes:*Recommendation #7 2-year terms; #8 Maintain current size; #9 All voting members; #10 Rebalance; #17 Maintain diversity; #20 Blinded candidate assessment; #21 Standardized Evaluation Tool; #24 NomCom Standing Committee; #27 Unaffiliated directors. * A NomCom Review Implementation Working Group was authorized by the Board in 2019. The WG developed the Implementation Plan, provided implementation status throughout the period and issued a final report <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126421307/NomComRIWG%20Prog...> in June 2022. The Board has accepted and even begun the work to institute most of the principal recommendations via bye-law amendments. The rebalancing matter they have thrown back over the wall for community input. To be clear, on the matter of Recommendation #9 (and maybe #10) - NomCom rebalancing - the Implementation WG said it was not feasible at this time but offered a view of what that would mean in practical terms. *Page 10 of the report,* additional comments to Recommendation #10 were recorded this way: "A number of people thought the NomCom needed to be rebalanced, *both across ICANN organizations and within ICANN **organizations.* Regarding the latter, for example, *more than one person thought the GNSO** s**hould consider rebalancing their NomCom appointees to match the structure of the GNSO*." [Emphases bold and underline are mine.!] Later in the report, the suggestion for a CCWG to help the GNSO do their rebalancing was recorded. Lets examine what balancing *within* ICANN organizations could mean in practice. It appears the possibility of an internal rebalancing of the GNSO seats to match its structure would not impact the number of members but is for seating interests inside the GNSO now determined as excluded. One could reasonably ask to what end the suggested internal GNSO rebalancing? The GNSO has 7 constituencies between the Contracted Party House (CPH) and Non-contracted Party House (NCPH). The GNSO occupies 7 NomCom seats today compared to the 5 seats for the At-Large. Those seats form a supermajority of the existing NomCom. Rebalancing the NomCom *across* ICANN organisations with the same number of votes suggests that either the GNSO and/or the ALAC would lose seats to other SO/ACs. One or other of the ASO and ccNSO would gain seats in this scenario. Question is, would the global public interests be preserved as objective for all? Stacking the Committee could also be a rebalancing act, this time for *across* ICANN objectives. One of the recommendations - #9 All voting members - would have awarded votes to the RSSAC, SSAC and GAC. This would raise the count of voting members to 18, would break the ALAC + GNSO supermajority and bring other parts of the community into power. We need to be sure whether we shall advocate a rebalancing across ICANN organisations or within an ICANN organisation. It is laudable that the RT took note of the diversity concerns raised and even attempted to deal with the processes and real life situations that are contributory. It is my view the recommendation of the NomCom Standing Committee intended to address retention of institutional knowledge and provide continuity is more of a danger to institutionalising the alleged biases reported by the review panel than not. But I will defer judgment until I see how this group would be raised and appointed and the terms of reference. Carlton Samuels ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 10:02, <staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote:
[[-- Translated text (es -> en) --]]
****message sent on behalf of the LACRALO Secretary******
Dear LACRALO members,
In the LACRALO monthly call held on Monday, May 15, 2023, we agreed to use two options to respond to the request for comments to the questions shared by the ICANN Board Chair, Tripti Sinha, on the subject of the rebalancing of the NomCom:
Creation of a small ad hoc group - Created at the meeting
Circulating a Google Document to provide feedback: link to https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VUNiCnwsnHo1rl1M9v8LQc0uFwXl5aegUYme9yX5...
Your comments are sought by May 25, 2023. I have also included some reference links in the document for easy access.
claire c craig
LACRALO Secretariat
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.