Robert Guerra wrote:
Questions and comments related to Nomcom were raised during the NA RALO discussions @ San Juan. Would be good to collect the comments and send them in.
I remember Evan having the most # of comments on this issue. correct?
From the high-level view, I'm very uncomfortable with the move of the Board from being chosen by direct elections to one made from the selections of a NomComm that is multiple levels removed from the public. There's also some feedback loop logic inherent in a process in which ALAC picks members of NonComm who then pick members of ALAC.
If direct Board elections aren't in the cards soon then the NomComm ought to be substantially -- if not overwhelmingly -- populated by people who are there to protect the public interest and the focus on ICANN's mandate (ie, not general Internet governance and not trademark treaties). My initial preference would be that the NomComm would be populated by one appointment from each NSO and one from each At-Large Region as well as the previous Chair of the Board -- but I can be easily swayed to other models that preserve the intent. I have other opinions related to the relationship between the ALAC and the NomComm, but that may be more appropriate for the ALAC review. My view here is that there should be NO NomComm-selected people on ALAC. If there is a pressing need for a third person from each region not picked by RALOs, then that spot should be elected by At-Large individuals not affiliated to a RALO in each region. (IMO this may help address the "enfranchisement of the unaffiliated", if only partially. It's still a far cry from direct Board elections.) Having said all this. I promised I would limit my participation on issues that weren't specifically project or policy related. Neither the composition of NomComm nor of ALAC will be of any relevance (from our POV) if at-large doesn't contribute to policy. I've now stated my piece and will leave the rest to others, unless I'm specifically dragged in (as happened here ;-) ). - Evan