[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Los procedimientos de nombramiento dentro de OE / ACS: Asunto De: crg@isoc-cr.org Estimado Vanda, gracias por recordarnos de este tema tan importante. No quiero anticiparme una discusión en la lista de LACRALO, pero me dejó informarle que en la actualidad tenemos a los asuntos pendientes de revisión cuidadosa del procedimiento en el Consejo de la GNSO que exigen gran atención y una cuidadosa consideración de las cuestiones presidente del ALAC ha planteado en su Nota. La primera fue la elección indefinida del Presidente de los Consejos Dublín, y más reciente, la selección del enlace GNSO-GAC. Mientras en tanto en caso de que tuvo un claro conjunto de reglas y procedimientos formales, en tanto casos en que las reglas no es suficiente para resolver las incertidumbres eventuales. Mirando hacia el futuro, en mi opinión esta la de las cuestiones tendrán que ser registrados a los efectos de los ACCT WS2 sub-equipos en SO / responsabilidad de CA, si sólo para ganar de experiencias similares, evitar la duplicación de trabajo y alcanzando un nivel común de transparencia en las citas a través de la comunidad. Aclamaciones Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg desplazamiento UTC actual: -6.00 (Costa Rica) El 12 jun 2016, a las 15:15, vanda@scartezini.org escribió:
[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
Asunto: Re: Candidato ALAC Comité de Selección De: vanda@scartezini.org
Queridos miembros
Creo que este es un problemas adicional Los ALAC donde está tratando de heverton opiniones más amplias que en sà ALAC. Por favor, siéntase libre de expresar su opinión. Atentamente
Vanda Enviado desde mi iPad Lo siento por errores tipográficos y faltas de ortografÃa
On 12 de jun de 2016, at 13:45, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Several months ago, we talked about forming (or perhaps reforming since there was one when Olivier was Chair) a candidate selection committee to make recommendations to the ALAC on the appointment of people to various positions.
There are generally two kinds of positions that we consider:
1. Positions appointed to (or recommended for appointment to, when the ALAC does not have the final say) various groups within ICANN. Examples include Cross-Community Working Groups (under the current rules used for the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability, and in the Draft CCWG Framework under consideration), Affirmation of Commitments Reviews (a name that probably will change under the pending Bylaw changes) and the CSC overseeing the new IANA. In these cases, the appointee has a responsibility to work with the ALAC and At-Large, but does not normally formally represent them (thus we have found that the appointed members of the CCWG-Accountability have at times had different positions on some issues).
2. Positions where the person is a Liaison to other bodies, generally within ICANN, and formally represents the ALAC in those groups. Moreover, in some cases, there are specific requirements that must be met.
In the past, we have not used a selection committee for this second type of appointment, but the importance of them is such that I think that we should have formal discussions on the candidates before an ALAC vote. Moreover, our Rules of Procedure allow the ALAC to re-appoint Liaisons without opening nominations, a practice that some people have felt is not appropriate. A selection committee would be an ideal place to hold the discussion on whether to do so in any given case.
The issue has been discussed within the ALT, and the general feeling is that in the case of the first class of appointments, there should be a committee similar to that used when Olivier was Chair. Specifically, a group composed of ten people, led by the ALAC Chair, with five of its members selected by RALOs (according to their own rules ands standards) and five selected by the ALAC, one per region in each case. Such an ALAC committee is in accordance with RoP Section 18.3.
Most (or perhaps all) ALT members feel that using the ALT itself as the ALAC Members on the selection committee makes sense (perhaps augmented by one additional person from the Chair's region). The ALT is selected annually to represent the interests of the regions on the leadership team, already works well together and is geared up for quick responses. But that is open for discussion.
For appointments of Liaisons and any other positions that formally represent the ALAC, there is a strong (but not unanimous) belief in the ALT that such recommendations must be made by ALAC members. Ultimately, people recommended by this group must represent the ALAC and it is ALAC members that must pass judgement. Again, I think the ALT is an easy choice for but other alternatives are possible. I would have no problem with the RALO appointees also participating in the discussions, since they would already understand the confidentiality issues related to personnel selection.
Note that in all cases, the selection committee has the option of providing one or more candidates for the consideration of the ALAC, but with the assurance that all candidates presented to the ALAC meet at the very least the minimum requirements.
I would appreciate comments so we can refine this quickly and approve it in Helsinki. ALT Members who have varying opinions are of course welcome to clearly state their positions.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
[[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/955d914d22.html --]]